FLORENCE-AMD 
IRVIN-5HUPPJR 


LITTLE   MASTERPIECES 


1    :i 


Little  Masterpieces 

Edited  by  Bliss  Perry 


DANIEL  WEBSTER 


REPRESENTATIVE    SPEECHES 


NEW  YORK 

DOUBLEDAY   &    McCLURE   CO. 
1898 


Copyright,  1898,  by 

DOUBLEDAY  &  McCLURE  CO. 


Introduction 


Introduction 

IF  any  justification  were  needed  for  including 
two  of  Daniel  Webster's  orations  in  a  series  of 
literary  masterpieces,  it  might  be  found  in  the 
words  of  one  of  his  younger  rivals.  In  his 
"  Remarks  on  the  Death  of  Mr.  Webster"  be- 
fore the  Suffolk  Bar,  on  October  28th,  1852 — an 
eulogy  only  less  graceful  and  memorable  than 
his  more  elaborate  discourse  delivered  before 
the  alumni  of  Dartmouth  College  the  following 
summer — Rufus  Choate  paid  this  tribute  to  the 
literary  quality  of  Webster's  speeches  : 

"  All  that  he  has  left,  or  the  larger  portion  of 
all,  is  the  record  of  spoken  words.  His  works, 
as  already  collected,  extend  to  many  volumes 
— a  library  of  reason  and  eloquence,  as  Gibbon 
has  said  of  Cicero's — but  they  are  volumes  of 
speeches  only  or  mainly  ;  and  yet  who  does  not 
rank  him  as  a  great  American  author  ?  an  au- 
thor as  truly  expounding,  and  as  characteristi- 
cally exemplifying,  in  a  pure,  genuine,  and  har- 
monious English  style,  the  mind,  thought,  point 
of  view  of  objects,  and  essential  nationality  of 
his  country  as  any  other  of  our  authors,  profess- 
edly so  denominated  ?  Against  the  maxim  of 
Mr.  Fox,  his  speeches  read  well,  and  yet  were 
good  speeches — great  speeches — in  the  deliv- 


Introduction 

cry.  For  so  grave  were  they,  so  thoughtful 
and  true,  so  much  the  eloquence  of  reason  at 
last,  so  strikingly  always  they  contrived  to  link 
the  immediate  topic  with  other  and  broader 
principles,  ascending  easily  to  widest  generali- 
zations, so  happy  was  the  reconciliation  of  the 
qualities  which  engage  the  attention  of  hearers, 
yet  reward  the  perusal  of  students,  so  critically 
did  they  keep  the  right  side  of  the  line  which 
parts  eloquence  from  rhetoric,  and  so  far  do 
they  rise  above  the  penury  of  mere  debate,  that 
the  general  reason  of  the  country  has  enshrined 
them  at  once,  and  forever,  among  our  classics." 
Webster  was  forty-four  when  he  pronounced 
the  commemorative  discourse  upon  John  Adams 
and  Thomas  Jefferson.  His  Plymouth  address 
in  1820,  six  years  before,  had  established  his 
fame  as  an  orator,  and  the  Bunker  Hill  speech 
of  1825  had  confirmed  it.  The  public  mind  in- 
stantly turned  to  him  in  the  hour  of  intense 
American  feeling  caused  by  the  simultaneous 
deaths,  upon  July  4th,  1826— the  fiftieth  anni- 
versary of  the  Declaration  of  Independence — of 
the  two  most  prominent  survivors  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary struggle.  This  extraordinary  coinci- 
dence, and  the  historical  associations  suggested 
by  it,  stirred  the  whole  country,  and  the 
thoughts  and  emotions  of  a  whole  country  were 
never  more  adequately  voiced  by  any  orator 
than  by  Webster's  eulogy  in  Faneuil  Hall.  The 
speech  is  best  known  to-day  by  two  passages, 
one  on  the  nature  of  true  eloquence,  and  the 
viii 


Introduction 

other  an  imaginary  speech  on  Independence  by 
John  Adams.  But  its  easy  narrative  style,  apt 
portrayal  of  character,  skilful  marshalling  of 
historical  events,  above  all,  its  fine  dignity  and 
fervid  patriotism,  are  equal  evidence  of  Web- 
ster's unrivalled  fitness  for  such  a  task.  One 
would  hesitate  to  say  that  the  speech  as  a  whole 
is  greater  than  the  Plymouth  or  the  Bunker  Hill 
addresses,  but  at  least  its  place  is  by  their  side. 

Webster's  most  celebrated  parliamentary 
effort  is  no  doubt  his  "  Second  Speech  on 
Foot's  Resolution,"  popularly  known  as  the 
"  Reply  to  Hayne."  Students  of  constitutional 
law  may  be  more  attracted  to  his  masterly  argu- 
ment in  reply  to  Calhoun,  entitled  "  The  Con- 
stitution not  a  Compact  between  Sovereign 
States."  His  Seventh  of  March  speech  in  1850 
perhaps  affected  his  personal  fortunes  more 
than  any  other.  But  as  an  exhibition  of  sheer 
power  in  debate,  the  "  Reply  to  Hayne"  stands 
alone. 

Like  many  another  speech  famous  in  parlia- 
mentary history,  its  immediate  occasion  arose 
almost  by  accident.  On  December  2gth,  1829, 
Senator  Foot  of  Connecticut  moved  a  resolu- 
tion with  regard  to  the  sale  of  public  lands.  It 
was  resented  by  Mr.  Benton  of  Missouri,  and 
other  Senators,  as  an  attack  upon  the  West  and 
South.  Debate  proceeded  somewhat  listlessly, 
however,  until  January  igth,  when  Mr.  Hayne 
of  South  Carolina,  a  graceful  and  brilliant  de- 
bater, made  a  long  and  telling  speech  directed 


CONTENTS 
^ 

PAGE 

Editor's  Introduction v 

Adams  and  Jefferson I 

Reply  to  Hayne 6l 


Adams  and  Jefferson* 

THIS  is  an  unaccustomed  spectacle.  For  the 
first  time,  fellow-citizens,  badges  of  mourning 
shroud  the  columns  and  overhang  the  arches  of 
this  hall.  These  walls,  which  were  consecrated, 
so  long  ago,  to  the  cause  of  American  liberty, 
which  witnessed  her  infant  struggles,  and  rung 
with  the  shouts  of  her  earliest  victories,  pro- 
claim, now,  that  distinguished  friends  and 
champions  of  that  great  cause  have  fallen.  It 
is  right  that  it  should  be  thus.  The  tears  which 
flow,  and  the  honors  that  are  paid,  when  the 
founders  of  the  republic  die,  give  hope  that  the 
republic  itself  may  be  immortal.  It  is  fit  that, 
by  public  assembly  and  solemn  observance,  by 
anthem  and  by  eulogy,  we  commemorate  the 
services  of  national  benefactors,  extol  their  vir- 
tues, and  render  thanks  to  God  for  eminent 
blessings,  early  given  and  long  continued, 
through  their  agency,  to  our  favored  country. 

ADAMS  and  JEFFERSON  are  no  more  ; 
and  we  are  assembled,  fellow-citizens,  the  aged. 


Daniel  Webster 

the  middle-aged,  and  the  young,  by  the  spon- 
taneous impulse  of  all,  under  the  authority  of 
the  municipal  government,  with  the  presence 
of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Commonwealth, 
and  others  its  official  representatives,  the  Uni- 
versity, and  the  learned  societies,  to  bear  our 
part  in  those  manifestations  of  respect  and 
gratitude  which  pervade  the  whole  land.  ADAMS 
and  JEFFERSON  are  no  more.  On  our  fiftieth 
anniversary,  the  great  day  of  national  jubilee, 
in  the  very  hour  of  public  rejoicing,  in  the  midst 
of  echoing  and  reechoing  voices  of  thanksgiv- 
ing, while  their  own  names  were  on  all  tongues, 
they  took  their  flight  together  to  the  world  of 
spirits. 

If  it  be  true  that  no  one  can  safely  be  pro- 
nounced happy  while  he  lives,  if  that  event 
which  terminates  life  can  alone  crown  its  hon- 
ors and  its  glory,  what  felicity  is  here  !  The 
great  epic  of  their  lives,  how  happily  concluded  ! 
Poetry  itself  has  hardly  terminated  illustrious 
lives,  and  finished  the  career  of  earthly  renown, 
by  such  a  consummation.  If  we  had  the  pow- 
er, we  could  not  wish  to  reverse  this  dispensa- 
tion of  the  Divine  Providence.  The  great  ob- 
jects of  life  were  accomplished,  the  drama  was 
ready  to  be  closed.  It  has  closed  ;  our  patriots 
have  fallen  ;  but  so  fallen,  at  such  age,  with 
such  coincidence,  on  such  a  day,  that  we  can- 
not rationally  lament  that  that  end  has  come, 
which  we  knew  could  not  be  long  deferred. 
*••.  Neither  of  these  great  men,  fellow-citizens, 
4 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

could  have  died,  at  any  time,  without  leaving 
an  immense  void  in  our  American  society. 
They  have  been  so  intimately,  and  for  so  long 
a  time,  blended  with  the  history  of  the  country, 
and  especially  so  united,  in  our  thoughts  and 
recollections,  with  the  events  of  the  Revolution, 
that  the  death  of  either  would  have  touched  the 
chords  of  public  sympathy.  We  should  have 
felt  that  one  great  link,  connecting  us  with 
former  times,  was  broken  ;  that  we  had  lost 
something  more,  as  it  were,  of  the  presence  of 
the  Revolution  itself,  and  of  the  act  of  inde- 
pendence, and  were  driven  on,  by  another  great 
remove  from  the  days  of  our  country's  early 
distinction,  to  meet  posterity,  and  to  mix  with 
the  future.  Like  the  mariner,  whom  the  cur- 
rents of  the  ocean  and  the  winds  carry  along, 
till  he  sees  the  stars  which  have  directed  his 
course  and  lighted  his  pathless  way  descend, 
one  by  one,  beneath  the  rising  horizon,  we 
should  have  felt  that  the  stream  of  time  had 
borne  us  onward  till  another  great  luminary, 
whose  light  had  cheered  us  and  whose  guidance 
we  had  followed,  had  sunk  away  from  our 
sight. 

But  the  concurrence  of  their  death  on  the  an- 
niversary of  Independence  has  naturally  awak- 
ened stronger  emotions.  Both  had  been  Presi- 
dents, both  had  lived  to  great  age,  both  were 
early  patriots,  and  both  were  distinguished  and 
ever  honored  by  their  immediate  agency  in  the 
act  of  independence.  It  cannot  but  seem  strik- 
5 


Daniel   Webster 

ing  and  extraordinary,  that  these  two  should 
live  to  see  the  fiftieth  year  from  the  date  of  that 
act ;  that  they  should  complete  that  year  ;  and 
that  then,  on  the  day  which  had  fast  linked  for 
ever  their  own  fame  with  their  country's  glory, 
the  heavens  should  open  to  receive  them  both 
at  once.  As  their  lives  themselves  were  the 
gifts  of  Providence,  who  is  not  willing  to  recog- 
nize in  their  happy  termination,  as  well  as  in 
their  long  continuance,  proofs  that  our  country 
and  its  benefactors  are  objects  of  His  care  ? 

ADAMS  and  JEFFERSON,  I  have  said,  are  no 
more.  As  human  beings,  indeed,  they  are  no 
more.  They  are  no  more,  as  in  1776,  bold  and 
fearless  advocates  of  independence  ;  no  more, 
as  at  subsequent  periods,  the  head  of  the  gov- 
ernment ;  no  more,  as  we  have  recently  seen 
them,  aged  and  venerable  objects  of  admiration 
and  regard.  They  are  no  more.  They  are 
dead.  But  how  little  is  there  of  the  great  and 
good  which  can  die  !  To  their  country  they 
yet  live,  and  live  for  ever.  They  live  in  all 
that  perpetuates  the  remembrance  of  men  on 
earth  ;  in  the  recorded  proofs  of  their  own  great 
actions,  in  the  offspring  of  their  intellect,  in  the 
deep-engraved  lines  of  public  gratitude,  and  in 
the  respect  and  homage  of  mankind.  They 
live  in  their  example  ;  and  they  live,  emphati- 
cally, and  will  live,  in  the  influence  which  their 
lives  and  efforts,  their  principles  and  opinions, 
now  exercise,  and  will  continue  to  exercise,  on 
the  affairs  of  men,  not  only  in  their  own  coun- 
6 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

try,  but  throughout  the  civilized  world.  A 
superior  and  commanding  human  intellect,  a 
truly  great  man,  when  Heaven  vouchsafes  so 
rare  a  gift,  is  not  a  temporary  flame,  burning 
brightly  for  a  while,  and  then  giving  place  to 
returning  darkness.  It  is  rather  a  spark  of  fer- 
vent heat,  as  well  as  radiant  light,  with  power 
to  enkindle  the  common  mass  of  human  mind  ; 
so  that  when  it  glimmers  in  its  own  decay,  and 
finally  goes  out  in  death,  no  night  follows,  but 
it  leaves  the  world  all  light,  all  on  fire,  from 
the  potent  contact  of  its  own  spirit.  Bacon 
died  ;  but  the  human  understanding,  roused 
by  the  touch  of  his  miraculous  wand  to  a  per- 
ception of  the  true  philosophy  and  the  just  mode 
of  inquiring  after  truth,  has  kept  on  its  course 
successfully  and  gloriously.  Newton  died  ;  yet 
the  courses  of  the  spheres  are  still  known,  and 
they  yet  move  on  by  the  laws  which  he  discov- 
ered, and  in  the  orbits  which  he  saw,  and  de- 
scribed for  them,  in  the  infinity  of  space. 

No  two  men  now  live,  fellow-citizens,  perhaps 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  any  two  men  have 
ever  lived  in  one  age,  who,  more  than  those  we 
now  commemorate,  have  impressed  on  mankind 
their  own  sentiments  in  regard  to  politics  and 
government,  infused  their  own  opinions  more 
deeply  into  the  opinions  of  others,  or  given  a 
more  lasting  direction  to  the  current  of  human 
thought.  Their  work  doth  not  perish  with 
them.  The  tree  which  they  assisted  to  plant 
will  flourish,  although  they  water  it  and  protect 
7 


Daniel   Webster 

it  no  longer  ;  for  it  has  struck  its  roots  deep,  it 
has  sent  them  to  the  very  centre  ;  no  storm, 
not  of  force  to  burst  the  orb,  can  overturn  it  ; 
its  branches  spread  wide  ;  they  stretch  their 
protecting  arms  broader  and  broader,  and  its 
top  is  destined  to  reach  the  heavens.  We  are 
not  deceived.  There  is  no  delusion  here.  No 
age  will  come  in  which  the  American  Revolu- 
tion will  appear  less  than  it  is,  one  of  the  great- 
est events  in  human  history.  No  age  will  come 
in  which  it  shall  cease  to  be  seen  and  felt,  on 
either  continent,  that  a  mighty  step,  a  great 
advance,  not  only  in  American  affairs,  but  in 
human  affairs,  was  made  on  the  4th  of  July, 
1776.  And  no  age  will  come,  we  trust,  so  igno- 
rant or  so  unjust  as  not  to  see  and  acknowledge 
the  efficient  agency  of  those  we  now  honor  in 
producing  that  momentous  event. 

We  are  not  assembled,  therefore,  fellow-citi- 
zens, as  men  overwhelmed  with  calamity  by  the 
sudden  disruption  of  the  ties  of  friendship  or 
affection,  or  as  in  despair  for  the  republic  by 
the  untimely  blighting  of  its  hopes.  Death  has 
not  surprised  us  by  an  unseasonable  blow.  We 
have,  indeed,  seen  the  tomb  close,  but  it  has 
closed  only  over  mature  years,  over  long-pro- 
tracted public  service,  over  the  weakness  of  age, 
and  over  life  itself  only  when  the  ends  of  living 
had  been  fulfilled.  These  suns,  as  they  rose 
slowly  and  steadily,  amidst  clouds  and  storms, 
in  their  ascendant,  so  they  have  not  rushed 
from  their  meridian  to  sink  suddenly  in  the 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

west.  Like  the  mildness,  the  serenity,  the  con- 
tinuing benignity  of  a  summer's  day,  they  have 
gone  down  with  slow-descending,  grateful, 
long-lingering  light  ;  and  now  that  they  are 
beyond  the  visible  margin  of  the  world,  good 
omens  cheer  us  from  ' '  the  bright  track  of  their 
fiery  car"  ! 

There  were  many  points  of  similarity  in  the 
lives  and  fortunes  of  these  great  men.  They 
belonged  to  the  same  profession,  and  had  pur- 
sued its  studies  and  its  practice,  for  unequal 
lengths  of  time  indeed,  but  with  diligence  and 
effect.  Both  were  learned  and  able  lawyers. 
They  were  natives  and  inhabitants,  respec- 
tively, of  those  two  of  the  Colonies  which  at 
the  Revolution  were  the  largest  and  most  pow- 
erful, and  which  naturally  had  a  lead  in  the 
political  affairs  of  the  times.  When  the  Col- 
onies became  in  some  degree  united,  by  the 
assembling  of  a  general  Congress,  they  were 
brought  to  act  together  in  its  deliberations,  not 
indeed  at  the  same  time,  but  both  at  early 
periods.  Each  had  already  manifested  his  at- 
tachment to  the  cause  of  the  country,  as  well  as 
his  ability  to  maintain  it,  by  printed  addresses, 
public  speeches,  extensive  correspondence,  and 
whatever  other  mode  could  be  adopted  for  the 
purpose  of  exposing  the  encroachments  of  the 
British  Parliament,  and  animating  the  people 
to  a  manly  resistance.  Both  were  not  only  de- 
cided, but  early,  friends  of  Independence. 
While  others  yet  doubted,  they  were  resolved  * 
9 


Daniel   Webster 

where  others  hesitated,  they  pressed  forward. 
They  were  both  members  of  the  committee  for 
preparing  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
they  constituted  the  sub-committee  appointed 
by  the  other  members  to  make  the  draft.  They 
left  their  seats  in  Congress,  being  called  to 
other  public  employments,  at  periods  not  re- 
mote from  each  other,  although  one  of  them  re- 
turned to  it  afterwards  for  a  short  time.  Neither 
of  them  was  of  the  assembly  of  great  men 
which  formed  the  present  Constitution,  and 
neither  was  at  any  time  a  member  of  Congress 
under  its  provisions.  Both  have  been  public 
ministers  abroad,  both  Vice-Presidents  and  both 
Presidents  of  the  United  States.  These  coinci- 
dences are  now  singularly  crowned  and  com- 
pleted. They  have  died  together  ;  and  they 
died  on  the  anniversary  of  liberty. 

When  many  of  us  were  last  in  this  place,  fel- 
low-citizens, it  was  on  the  day  of  that  anniver- 
sary. We  were  met  to  enjoy  the  festivities  be- 
longing to  the  occasion,  and  to  manifest  our 
grateful  homage  to  our  political  fathers.  We 
did  not,  we  could  not  here,  forget  our  venerable 
neighbor  of  Quincy.  We  knew  that  we  were 
standing,  at  a  time  of  high  and  palmy  prosper- 
ity, where  he  had  stood  in  the  hour  of  utmost 
peril  ;  that  we  saw  nothing  but  liberty  and 
security,  where  he  had  met  the  frown  of  power  ; 
that  we  were  enjoying  every  thing,  where  he 
had  hazarded  every  thing  ;  and  just  and  sin- 
cere plaudits  rose  to  his  name,  from  the  crowds 
10 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

which  filled  this  area,  and  hung  over  these  gal- 
leries. He  whose  grateful  duty  it  was  to  speak 
to  us,*  on  that  day,  of  the  virtues  of  our  fathers, 
had,  indeed,  admonished  us  that  time  and  years 
were  about  to  level  his  venerable  frame  with 
the  dust.  But  he  bade  us  hope  that  ' '  the 
sound  of  a  nation's  joy,  rushing  from  our  cities, 
ringing  from  our  valleys,  echoing  from  our 
hills,  might  yet  break  the  silence  of  his  aged 
ear  ;  that  the  rising  blessings  of  grateful  mill- 
ions might  yet  visit  with  glad  light  his  decay- 
ing vision."  Alas  !  that  vision  was  then  clos- 
ing for  ever.  Alas  !  the  silence  which  was  then 
settling  on  that  aged  ear  was  an  everlasting 
silence  !  For,  lo  !  in  the  very  moment  of  our 
festivities,  his  freed  spirit  ascended  to  God  who 
gave  it  !  Human  aid  and  human  solace  ter- 
minate at  the  grave  ;  or  we  would  gladly  have 
borne  him  upward,  on  a  nation's  outspread 
hands  ;  we  would  have  accompanied  him,  and 
with  the  blessings  of  millions  and  the  prayers 
of  millions,  commended  him  to  the  Divine 
favor. 

While  still  indulging  our  thoughts,  on  the 
coincidence  of  the  death  of  this  venerable  man 
with  the  anniversary  of  Independence,  we  learn 
that  Jefferson,  too,  has  fallen  ;  and  that  these 
aged  patriots,  these  illustrious  fellow-laborers, 
have  left  our  world  together.  May  not  such 
events  raise  the  suggestion  that  they  are  not 

*  Hon.  Josiah  Quincy. 


Daniel   Webster 

undesigned,  and  that  Heaven  does  so  order 
things,  as  sometimes  to  attract  strongly  the  at- 
tention and  excite  the  thoughts  of  men  ?  The 
occurrence  has  added  new  interest  to  our  anni- 
versary, and  will  be  remembered  in  all  time  to 
come. 

The  occasion,  fellow-citizens,  requires  some 
account  of  the  lives  and  services  of  JOHN  ADAMS 
and  THOMAS  JEFFERSON.  This  duty  must  neces- 
sarily be  performed  with  great  brevity,  and  in 
the  discharge  of  it  I  shall  be  obliged  to  confine 
myself,  principally,  to  those  parts  of  their  his- 
tory and  character  which  belonged  to  them  as 
public  men. 

JOHN  ADAMS  was  born  at  Quincy,  then  part  of 
the  ancient  town  of  Braintree,  on  the  igth  day 
of  October  (old  style),  1735.  He  was  a  descend- 
ant of  the  Puritans,  his  ancestors  having  early 
emigrated  from  England,  and  settled  in  Massa- 
chusetts. Discovering  in  childhood  a  strong 
love  of  reading  and  of  knowledge,  together 
with  marks  of  great  strength  and  activity  of 
mind,  proper  care  was  taken  by  his  worthy 
father  to  provide  for  his  education.  He  pur- 
sued his  youthful  studies  in  Braintree,  under 
Mr.  Marsh,  a  teacher  whose  fortune  it  was  that 
Josiah  Quincy,  Jr.,  as  well  as  the  subject  of 
these  remarks,  should  receive  from  him  his  in- 
struction in  the  rudiments  of  classical  literature. 
Having  been  admitted,  in  1751,  a  member  of 
Harvard  College,  Mr.  Adams  was  graduated, 
12 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

in  course,  in  1755  ;  and  on  the  catalogue  of  that 
institution,  his  name,  at  the  time  of  his  death, 
was  second  among  the  living  Alumni,  being 
preceded  only  by  that  of  the  venerable  Holyoke. 
With  what  degree  of  reputation  he  left  the  Uni- 
versity is  not  now  precisely  known.  We  know 
only  that  he  was  distinguished  in  a  class  which 
numbered  Locke  and  Hemmenway  among  its. 
members.  Choosing  the  law  for  his  profession, 
he  commenced  and  prosecuted  its  studies  at 
Worcester,  under  the  direction  of  Samuel  Put- 
nam, a  gentleman  whom  he  has  himself  de- 
scribed as  an  acute  man,  an  able  and  learned 
lawyer,  and  as  being  in  large  professional  prac- 
tice at  that  time.  In  1758  he  was  admitted  to 
the  bar,  and  entered  upon  the  practice  of  the 
law  in  Braintree.  He  is  understood  to  have 
made  his  first  considerable  effort,  or  to  have  at- 
tained his  first  signal  success,  at  Plymouth,  on 
one  of  those  occasions  which  furnish  the  earliest 
opportunity  for  distinction  to  many  young  men 
of  the  profession,  a  jury  trial,  and  a  criminal 
cause.  His  business  naturally  grew  with  his 
reputation,  and  his  residence  in  the  vicinity 
afforded  the  opportunity,  as  his  growing  emi- 
nence gave  the  power,  of  entering  on  a  larger 
field  of  practice  in  the  capital.  In  1766  he  re- 
moved his  residence  to  Boston,  still  continuing 
his  attendance  on  the  neighboring  circuits,  and 
not  unfrequently  called  to  remote  parts  of  the 
Province.  In  1770  his  professional  firmness 
was  brought  to  a  test  of  some  severity,  on  the 
13 


Daniel   Webster 

application  of  the  British  officers  and  soldiers 
to  undertake  their  defence,  on  the  trial  of  the 
indictments  found  against  them  on  account  of 
the  transactions  of  the  memorable  sth  of  March. 
He  seems  to  have  thought,  on  this  occasion, 
that  a  man  can  no  more  abandon  the  proper 
duties  of  his  profession,  than  he  can  abandon 
other  duties.  The  event  proved,  that,  as  he 
judged  well  for  his  own  reputation,  so,  too,  he 
judged  well  for  the  interest  and  permanent 
fame  of  his  country.  The  result  of  that  trial 
proved,  that,  notwithstanding  the  high  degree 
of  excitement  then  existing  in  consequence  of 
the  measures  of  the  British  government,  a  jury 
of  Massachusetts  would  not  deprive  the  most 
reckless  enemies,  even  the  officers  of  that  stand- 
ing army  quartered  among  them,  which  they  so 
perfectly  abhorred,  of  any  part  of  that  protec- 
tion which  the  law,  in  its  mildest  and  most  in- 
dulgent interpretation,  affords  to  persons  ac- 
cused of  crimes. 

Without  following  Mr.  Adams's  professional 
course  further,  suffice  it  to  say,  that  on  the  first 
establishment  of  the  judicial  tribunals  under 
the  authority  of  the  State,  in  1776,  he  received 
an  offer  of  the  high  and  responsible  station  of 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massa- 
chusetts. But  he  was  destined  for  another  and 
a  different  career.  From  early  life  the  bent  of 
his  mind  was  toward  politics  ;  a  propensity 
which  the  state  of  the  times,  if  it  did  not  create, 
doubtless  very  much  strengthened.  Public 
14 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

subjects  must  have  occupied  the  thoughts  and 
filled  up  the  conversation  in  the  circles  in  which 
he  then  moved  ;  and  the  interesting  questions 
at  that  time  just  arising  could  not  but  seize  on 
a  mind  like  his,  ardent,  sanguine,  and  patriotic. 
A  letter,  fortunately  preserved,  written  by  him 
at  Worcester,  so  early  as  the  i2th  of  October, 
1755,  is  a  proof  of  very  comprehensive  views, 
and  uncommon  depth  of  reflection,  in  a  young 
man  not  yet  quite  twenty.  In  this  letter  he 
predicted  the  transfer  of  power,  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  new  seat  of  empire  in  America  \. 
he  predicted,  also,  the  increase  of  population  in 
the  Colonies  :  and  anticipated  their  naval  dis- 
tinction, and  foretold  that  all  Europe  combined 
could  not  subdue  them.  All  this  is  said,  not  on 
a  public  occasion  or  for  effect,  but  in  the  style 
of  sober  and  friendly  correspondence,  as  the  re- 
sult of  his  own  thoughts.  "  I  sometimes  retire," 
said  he,  at  the  close  of  the  letter,  "  and,  laying 
things  together,  form  some  reflections  pleasing 
to  myself.  The  produce  of  one  of  these  rev- 
eries you  have  read  above. ' '  This  prognostica- 
tion so  early  in  his  own  life,  so  early  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  country,  of  independence,  of  vast 
increase  of  numbers,  of  naval  force,  of  such 
augmented  power  as  might  defy  all  Europe,  is 
remarkable.  It  is  more  remarkable  that  its 
author  should  live  to  see  fulfilled  to  the  letter 
what  could  have  seemed  to  others,  at  the  time, 
but  the  extravagance  of  youthful  fancy.  His 
earliest  political  feelings  were  thus  strongly 
15 


Daniel   Webster 

American,  and  from  this  ardent  attachment  to 
his  native  soil  he  never  departed. 

While  still  living  at  Quincy,  and  at  the  age 
of  twenty-four,  Mr.  Adams  was  present,  in  this 
town,  at  the  argument  before  the  Supreme 
Court  respecting  Writs  of  Assistance,  and 
heard  the  celebrated  and  patriotic  speech  of 
JAMES  OTIS.  Unquestionably,  that  was  a  mas- 
terly performance.  No  flighty  declamation 
about  liberty,  no  superficial  discussion  of  popu- 
lar topics,  it  was  a  learned,  penetrating,  con- 
vincing, constitutional  argument,  expressed  in 
a  strain  of  high  and  resolute  patriotism.  He 
grasped  the  question  then  pending  between 
England  and  her  Colonies  with  the  strength  of 
a  lion  ;  and  if  he  sometimes  sported,  it  was  only 
because  the  lion  himself  is  sometimes  playful. 
Its  success  appears  to  have  been  as  great  as  its 
merits,  and  its  impression  was  widely  felt.  Mr. 
Adams  himself  seems  never  to  have  lost  the 
feeling  it  produced,  and  to  have  entertained 
constantly  the  fullest  conviction  of  its  important 
effects.  4<  I  do  say,"  he  observes,  "  in  the  most 
solemn  manner,  that  Mr.  Otis's  Oration  against 
Writs  of  Assistance  breathed  into  this  nation 
the  breath  of  life." 

In  1765  Mr.  Adams  laid  before  the  public, 
anonymously,  a  series  of  essays,  afterwards 
collected  in  a  volume  in  London,  under  the 
title  of  A  Dissertation  on  the  Canon  and  Feudal 
Law.  The  object  of  this  work  was  to  show 
that  our  New  England  ancestors,  in  consenting 
16 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

to  exile  themselves  from  their  native  land,  were 
actuated  mainly  by  the  desire  of  delivering 
themselves  from  the  power  of  the  hierarchy, 
and  from  the  monarchical  and  aristocratical  sys- 
tems of  the  other  continent  ;  and  to  make  this 
truth  bear  with  effect  on  the  politics  of  the 
times.  Its  tone  is  uncommonly  bold  and  ani- 
mated for  that  period.  He  calls  on  the  people, 
not  only  to  defend,  but  to  study  and  under- 
stand, their  rights  and  privileges  ;  urges  ear- 
nestly the  necessity  of  diffusing  general  knowl- 
edge ;  invokes  the  clergy  and  the  bar,  the  col- 
leges and  academies,  and  all  others  who  have 
the  ability  and  the  means  to  expose  the  insidi- 
ous designs  of  arbitrary  power,  to  resist  its  ap- 
proaches, and  to  be  persuaded  that  there  is  a 
settled  design  on  foot  to  enslave  all  America. 
"Be  it  remembered,"  says  the  author,  "that 
liberty  must,  at  all  hazards,  be  supported.  We 
have  a  right  to  it,  derived  from  our  Maker. 
-  But  if  we  had  not,  our  fathers  have  earned  and 
bought  it  for  us,  at  the  expense  of  their  ease, 
their  estates,  their  pleasure,  and  their  blood. 
And  liberty  cannot  be  preserved  without  a  gen- 
eral knowledge  among  the  people,  who  have  a 
right,  from  the  frame  of  their  nature,  to  knowl- 
edge, as  their  great  Creator,  who  does  nothing 
in  vain,  has  given  them  understandings  and  a 
desire  to  know.  But,  besides  this,  they  have  a 
right,  an  indisputable,  un alienable,  indefeasi- 
ble, divine  right,  to  that  most  dreaded  and  en- 
vied kind  of  knowledge,  I  mean  of  the  charac- 


Daniel   Webster 

ters  and  conduct  of  their  rulers.  Rulers  are  no- 
more  than  attorneys,  agents,  and  trustees  for 
the  people  ;  and  if  the  cause,  the  interest  and 
trust,  is  insidiously  betrayed,  or  wantonly  trifled 
away,  the  people  have  a  right  to  revoke  the 
authority  that  they  themselves  have  deputed, 
and  to  constitute  abler  and  better  agents,  attor- 
neys, and  trustees." 

The  citizens  of  this  town  conferred  on  Mr. 
Adams  his  first  political  distinction,  and  clothed 
him  with  his  first  political  trust,  by  electing 
him  one  of  their  representatives,  in  1770.  Be- 
fore this  time  he  had  become  extensively  known 
throughout  the  Province,  as  well  by  the  part  he 
had  acted  in  relation  to  public  affairs,  as  by  the 
exercise  of  his  professional  ability.  He  was 
among  those  who  took  the  deepest  interest 
in  the  controversy  with  England,  and  whether 
in  or  out  of  the  legislature,  his  time  and 
talents  were  alike  devoted  to  the  cause.  In 
the  year  1773  and  1774  he  was  chosen  a* 
Councillor  by  the  members  of  the  General 
Court,  but  rejected  by  Governor  Hutchinson  in 
the  former  of  those  years,  and  by  Governor 
Gage  in  the  latter. 

The  time  was  now  at  hand,  however,  when, 
the  affairs  of  the  Colonies  urgently  demanded 
united  counsels  throughout  the  country.  An 
open  rupture  with  the  parent  state  appeared  in- 
evitable, and  it  was  but  the  dictate  of  prudence 
that  those  who  were  united  by  a  common  inter- 
est and  a  common  danger  should  protect  that 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

interest  and  guard  against  that  danger  by 
united  efforts.  A  general  Congress  of  Dele- 
gates from  all  the  Colonies  having  been  pro- 
posed and  agreed  to,  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, on  the  1 7th  of  June,  1774,  elected  James 
Bowdoin,  Thomas  Gushing,  Samuel  Adams, 
John  Adams,  and  Robert  Treat  Paine,  dele- 
gates from  Massachusetts.  This  appointment 
was  made  at  Salem,  where  the  General  Court 
had  been  convened  by  Governor  Gage,  in  the 
last  hour  of  the  existence  of  a  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives under  the  Provincial  Charter.  While 
engaged  in  this  important  business,  the  Gov- 
ernor, having  been  informed  of  what  was  pass- 
ing, sent  his  secretary  with  a  message  dissolv- 
ing the  General  Court.  The  secretary,  finding 
the  door  locked,  directed  the  messenger  to  go 
in  and  inform  the  Speaker  that  the  secretary 
was  at  the  door  with  a  message  from  the  Gov- 
ernor. The  messenger  returned,  and  informed 
the  secretary  that  the  orders  of  the  House  were 
that  the  doors  should  be  kept  fast ;  whereupon 
the  secretary  soon  after  read  upon  the  stairs  a 
proclamation  dissolving  the  General  Court. 
Thus  terminated,  for  ever,  the  actual  exercise 
of  the  political  power  of  England  in  or  over 
Massachusetts.  The  four  last-named  delegates 
accepted  their  appointments,  and  took  their 
seats  in  Congress  the  first  day  of  its  meeting, 
the  sth  of  September,  1774,  in  Philadelphia. 

The  proceedings  of  the  first  Congress  are  well 
known,  and  have  been  universally  admired. 

19 


Daniel   Webster 

It  is  in  vain  that  we  would  look  for  superior 
proofs  of  wisdom,  talent,  and  patriotism.  Lord 
Chatham  said,  that,  for  himself,  he  must  declare 
that  he  had  studied  and  admired  the  free  states 
of  antiquity,  the  master  states  of  the  world,  but 
that  for  solidity  of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity, 
and  wisdom  of  conclusion,  no  body  of  men 
could  stand  in  preference  to  this  Congress.  It 
is  hardly  inferior  praise  to  say,  that  no  produc- 
tion of  that  great  man  himself  can  be  pro- 
nounced superior  to  several  of  the  papers  pub- 
lished as  the  proceedings  of  this  most  able,  most 
firm,  most  patriotic  assembly.  There  is,  in- 
deed, nothing  superior  to  them  in  the  range  of 
political  disquisition.  They  not  only  embrace, 
illustrate,  and  enforce  every  thing  which  politi- 
cal philosophy,  the  love  of  liberty,  and  the  spirit 
of  free  inquiry  had  antecedently  produced,  but 
they  add  new  and  striking  views  of  their  own, 
and  apply  the  whole,  with  irresistible  force,  in 
support  of  the  cause  which  had  drawn  them 
together. 

Mr.  Adams  was  a  constant  attendant  on  the 
deliberations  of  this  body,  and  bore  an  active 
part  in  its  important  measures.  He  was  of  the 
committee  to  state  the  rights  of  the  Colonies, 
and  of  that  also  which  reported  the  Address  to 
the  King. 

As  it  was  in  the  Continental  Congress,  fellow- 
citizens,  that  those  whose  deaths  have  given 
rise  to  this  occasion  were  first  brought  together, 
and  called  upon  to  unite  their  industry  and 
20 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

their  ability  in  the  service  of  the  country,  let  us 
now  turn  to  the  other  of  these  distinguished 
men,  and  take  a  brief  notice  of  his  life  up  to  the 
period  when  he  appeared  within  the  walls  of 
Congress. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON,  descended  from  ancestors 
who  had  been  settled  in  Virginia  for  some  gen- 
erations, was  born  near  the  spot  on  which  he 
died,  in  the  county  of  Albemarle,  on  the  2d  of 
April  (old  style),  1743.  His  youthful  studies 
were  pursued  in  the  neighborhood  of  his  father's 
residence  until  he  was  removed  to  the  College 
of  William  and  Mary,  the  highest  honors  of 
which  he  in  due  time  received.  Having  left 
the  College  with  reputation,  he  applied  himself 
to  the  study  of  the  law  under  the  tuition  of 
George  Wythe,  one  of  the  highest  judicial 
names  of  which  that  State  can  boast.  At  an 
early  age  he  was  elected  a  member  of  the  legis- 
lature, in  which  he  had  no  sooner  appeared 
than  he  distinguished  himself  by  knowledge, 
capacity,  and  promptitude. 

Mr.  Jefferson  appears  to  have  been  imbued 
with  an  early  love  of  letters  and  science,  and  to 
have  cherished  a  strong  disposition  to  pursue 
these  objects.  To  the  physical  sciences,  espe- 
cially, and  to  ancient  classic  literature,  he  is 
understood  to  have  had  a  warm  attachment, 
and  never  entirely  to  have  lost  sight  of  them  in 
the  midst  of  the  busiest  occupations.  But  the 
times  were  times  for  action,  rather  than  for  con- 
templation. The  country  was  to  be  defended. 
21 


Daniel   Webster 

and  to  be  saved,  before  it  could  be  enjoyed. 
Philosophic  leisure  and  literary  pursuits,  and 
even  the  objects  of  professional  attention,  were 
all  necessarily  postponed  to  the  urgent  calls  of 
the  public  service.  The  exigency  of  the  coun- 
try made  the  same  demand  on  Mr.  Jefferson 
that  it  made  on  others  who  had  the  ability  and 
the  disposition  to  serve  it  ;  and  he  obeyed  the 
call  ;  thinking  and  feeling  in  this  respect  with 
the  great  Roman  orator  :  "  Quis  enim  est  tam 
cupidus  in  perspicienda  cognoscendaque  rerum 
natura,  ut,  si  ei  tractanti  contemplantique  res 
cognitione  dignissimas  subito  sit  allatum  peri- 
culum  discrimenque  patriae,  cui  subvenire  opitu- 
larique  possit,  non  ilia  omnia  relinquat  atque  ab- 
jiciat,  etiam  si  dinumerare  se  Stellas,  aut  metiri 
mundi  magnitudinem  posse  arbitretur  ?" 

Entering  with  all  his  heart  into  the  cause  of 
liberty,  his  ability,  patriotism,  and  power  with 
the  pen  naturally  drew  upon  him  a  large  par- 
ticipation in  the  most  important  concerns. 
Wherever  he  was,  there  was  found  a  soul  de- 
voted to  the  cause,  power  to  defend  and  main- 
tain it,  and  willingness  to  incur  all  its  hazards. 
In  1774  he  published  a  Summary  View  of  the 
Rights  of  British  America,  a  valuable  produc- 
tion among  those  intended  to  show  the  dangers 
which  threatened  the  liberties  of  the  country, 
and  to  encourage  the  people  in  their  defence. 
In  June,  1775,  he  was  elected  a  member  of  the 
Continental  Congress,  as  successor  to  Peyton 
Randolph,  who  had  resigned  his  place  on  ac- 
22 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

count  of  ill  health,  and  took  his  seat  in  that 
"body  on  the  2ist  of  the  same  month. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  without  pursuing" 
the  biography  of  these  illustrious  men  further, 
for  the  present,  let  us  turn  our  attention  to 
the  most  prominent  act  of  their  lives,  their 
participation  in  the  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPEND- 
ENCE. 

Preparatory  to  the  introduction  of  that  im- 
portant measure,  a  committee,  at  the  head  of 
which  was  Mr.  Adams,  had  reported  a  resolu- 
tion, which  Congress  adopted  on  the  loth  oi 
May,  recommending,  in  substance,  to  all  the 
Colonies  which  had  not  already  established  gov- 
ernments suited  to  the  exigencies  of  their 
affairs,  to  adopt  such  government  as  ivouldt 
in  the  opinion  of  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  best  conduce  to  the  happiness  and 
safety  of  their  constitutents  in  particular, 
and  America  in  general. 

This  significant  vote  was  soon  followed  by 
the  direct  proposition  which  Richard  Henry 
Lee  had  the  honor  to  submit  to  Congress,  by 
resolution,  on  the  7th  day  of  June.  The  pub- 
lished journal  does  not  expressly  state  it,  but 
there  is  no  doubt,  I  suppose,  that  this  resolution 
was  in  the  same  words,  when  originally  sub- 
mitted by  Mr.  Lee,  as  when  finally  passed. 
Having  been  discussed  on  Saturday,  the  8th, 
and  Monday,  the  loth  of  June,  this  resolution 
was  on  the  last  mentioned  day  postponed  for 
further  consideration  to  the  first  day  of  July  ; 
23 


Daniel   Webster 

and  at  the  same  time  it  was  voted,  that  a  com- 
mittee be  appointed  to  prepare  a  Declaration  to 
the  effect  of  the  resolution.  This  committee 
was  elected  by  ballot,  on  the  following  day,  and 
consisted  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  John  Adams, 
Benjamin  Franklin,  Roger  Sherman,  and  Rob- 
ert R.  Livingston. 

It  is  usual,  when  committees  are  elected  by 
ballot,  that  their  members  should  be  arranged 
in  order,  according  to  the  number  of  votes 
which  each  has  received.  Mr.  Jefferson,  there- 
fore, had  received  the  highest,  and  Mr.  Adams 
the  next  highest  number  of  votes.  The  difference 
is  said  to  have  been  but  of  a  single  vote.  Mr. 
Jefferson  and  Mr.  Adams,  standing  thus  at  the 
head  of  the  committee,  were  requested  by  the 
other  members  to  act  as  a  sub-committee  to  pre- 
pare the  draft ;  and  Mr.  Jefferson  drew  up  the 
paper.  The  original  draft,  as  brought  by  him 
from  his  study,  and  submitted  to  the  other 
members  of  the  committee,  with  interlineations 
in  the  handwriting  of  Dr.  Franklin,  and  others 
in  that  of  Mr.  Adams,  was  in  Mr.  Jefferson's 
possession  at  the  time  of  his  death.  The  merit 
of  this  paper  is  Mr.  Jefferson's.  Some  changes 
were  made  in  it  at  the  suggestion  of  other 
members  of  the  committee,  and  others  by  Con- 
gress while  it  was  under  discussion.  But  none 
of  them  altered  the  tone,  the  frame,  the  arrange- 
ment, or  the  general  character  of  the  instru- 
ment. As  a  composition,  the  Declaration  is 
Mr.  Jefferson's.  It  is  the  production  of  his 
24 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

mind,  and  the  high  honor  of  it  belongs  to  him, 
clearly  and  absolutely. 

It  has  sometimes  been  said,  as  if  it  were  a 
derogation  from  the  merits  of  this  paper,  that  it 
contains  nothing  new  ;  that  it  only  states 
grounds  of  proceeding,  and  presses  topics  of 
argument,  which  had  often  been  stated  and 
pressed  before.  But  it  was  not  the  object  of 
the  Declaration  to  produce  any  thing  new.  It 
•was  not  to  invent  reasons  for  independence, 
but  to  state  those  which  governed  the  Congress. 
For  great  and  sufficient  causes,  it  was  proposed 
to  declare  independence  ;  and  the  proper  busi- 
ness of  the  paper  to  be  drawn  was  to  set  forth 
those  causes,  and  justify  the  authors  of  the 
measure,  in  any  event  of  fortune,  to  the 
country  and  to  posterity.  The  cause  of 
American  independence,  moreover,  was  now 
to  be  presented  to  the  world  in  such  man- 
ner, if  it  might  so  be,  as  to  engage  its  sym- 
pathy, to  command  its  respect,  to  attract  its  ad- 
miration ;  and  in  an  assembly  of  most  able  and 
distinguished  men,  THOMAS  JEFFERSON  had  the 
high  honor  of  being  the  selected  advocate  of 
this  cause.  To  say  that  he  performed  his  great 
work  well,  would  be  doing  him  injustice.  To 
say  that  he  did  excellently  well,  admirably  well, 
would  be  inadequate  and  halting  praise.  Let 
us  rather  say,  that  he  so  discharged  the  duty 
assigned  him,  that  all  Americans  may  well  re- 
joice that  the  work  of  drawing  the  title-deed  of 
their  liberties  devolved  upon  him. 
25 


Daniel   Webster 

With  all  its  merits,  there  are  those  who  have 
thought  that  there  was  one  thing  in  the  Dec- 
laration to  be  regretted  ;  and  that  is,  the  as- 
perity and  apparent  anger  with  which  it  speaks 
of  the  person  of  the  king  ;  the  industrious  abil- 
ity with  which  it  accumulates  and  charges  upon 
him  all  the  injuries  which  the  Colonies  had  suf- 
fered from  the  mother  country.  Possibly  some 
degree  of  injustice,  now  or  hereafter,  at  home 
or  abroad,  may  be  done  to  the  character  of  Mr. 
Jefferson,  if  this  part  of  the  Declaration  be  not 
placed  in  its  proper  light.  Anger  or  resent- 
ment, certainly  much  less  personal  reproach 
and  invective,  could  not  properly  find  place  in 
a  composition  of  such  high  dignity,  and  of  such 
lofty  and  permanent  character. 

A  single  reflection  on  the  original  ground  of 
dispute  between  England  and  the  Colonies  is 
sufficient  to  remove  any  unfavorable  impression 
in  this  respect. 

The  inhabitants  of  all  the  Colonies,  while 
Colonies,  admitted  themselves  bound  by  their 
allegiance  to  the  king  ;  but  they  disclaimed  alto- 
gether the  authority  of  Parliament  ;  holding 
themselves,  in  this  respect,  to  resemble  the  con- 
dition of  Scotland  and  Ireland  before  the  re- 
spective unions  of  those  kingdoms  with  Eng- 
land, when  they  acknowledged  allegiance  to 
the  same  king,  but  had  each  its  separate  legis- 
lature. The  tie,  therefore,  which  our  Revolu- 
tion was  to  break  did  not  subsist  between  us 
and  the  British  Parliament,  or  between  us  and 
26 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

the  British  government  in  the  aggregate,  but 
directly  between  us  and  the  king  himself.  The 
Colonies  had  never  admitted  themselves  sub- 
ject to  Parliament.  That  was  precisely  the 
point  of  the  original  controversy.  They  had 
uniformly  denied  that  Parliament  had  authority 
to  make  laws  for  them.  There  was,  therefore, 
no  subjection  to  Parliament  to  be  thrown  off. 
But  allegiance  to  the  king  did  exist,  and  had 
been  uniformly  acknowledged  ;  and  down  to 
1775  the  most  solemn  assurances  had  been  given 
that  it  was  not  intended  to  break  that  alle- 
giance, or  to  throw  it  off.  Therefore,  as  the  di- 
rect object  and  only  effect  of  the  Declaration, 
according  to  the  principles  on  which  the  con- 
troversy had  been  maintained  on  our  part,  were 
to  sever  the  tie  of  allegiance  which  bound  us  to 
the  king,  it  was  properly  and  necessarily  found^ 
ed  on  acts  of  the  crown  itself,  as  its  justifying 
causes.  Parliament  is  not  so  much  as  men- 
tioned in  the  whole  instrument.  When  odious 
and  oppressive  acts  are  referred  to,  it  is  done 
by  charging  the  king  with  confederating  with 
others  "  in  pretended  acts  of  legislation  ;"  the 
object  being  constantly  to  hold  the  king  himself 
directly  responsible  for  those  measures  which 
were  the  grounds  of  separation.  Even  the 
precedent  of  the  English  Revolution  was  not 
overlooked,  and  in  this  case,  as  well  as  in  that, 
occasion  was  found  to  say  that  the  king  had 
abdicated  the  government.  Consistency  with 
the  principles  upon  which  resistance  began,  and 
27 


Daniel   Webster 

with  all  the  previous  state  papers  issued  by 
Congress,  required  that  the  Declaration  should 
be  bottomed  on  the  misgovernment  of  the  king  ; 
and  therefore  it  was  properly  framed  with  that 
aim  and  to  that  end.  The  king  was  known,  in- 
deed, to  have  acted,  as  in  other  cases,  by  his 
ministers,  and  with  his  Parliament  ;  but  as  our 
ancestors  had  never  admitted  themselves  subject 
either  to  ministers  or  to  Parliament,  there  were 
no  reasons  to  be  given  for  now  refusing  obedi- 
ence to  their  authority.  This  clear  and  obvious 
necessity  of  founding  the  Declaration  on  the 
misconduct  of  the  king  himself,  gives  to  that  in- 
strument its  personal  application,  and  its  char- 
acter of  direct  and  pointed  accusation. 

The  Declaration  having  been  reported  to 
Congress  by  the  committee,  the  resolution  itself 
was  taken  up  and  debated  on  the  first  day  of 
July,  and  again  on  the  second,  on  which  last 
day  it  was  agreed  to  and  adopted,  in  these 
words  : 

"  Resolved,  That  these  united  Colonies  are, 
and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and  independent 
States  ;  that  they  are  absolved  from  all  alle- 
giance to  the  British  crown,  and  that  all  political 
connection  between  them  and  the  state  of  Great 
Britain  is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved." 

Having  thus  passed  the  main  resolution,  Con- 
gress  proceeded  to  consider  the  reported  draught 
of  the  Declaration.  It  was  discussed  on  the 
second,  and  third,  and  FOURTH  days  of  the 
month,  in  committee  of  the  whole  ;  and  on  the 
28 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

last  of  those  days,  being  reported  from  that 
committee,  it  received  the  final  approbation  and 
sanction  of  Congress.  It  was  ordered,  at  the 
same  time,  that  copies  be  sent  to  the  several 
States,  and  that  it  be  proclaimed  at  the  head  of 
the  army.  The  Declaration  thus  published  did 
not  bear  the  names  of  the  members,  for  as  yet 
it  had  not  been  signed  by  them.  It  was  au- 
thenticated, like  other  papers  of  the  Congress, 
by  the  signatures  of  the  President  and  Secre- 
tary. On  the  igth  of  July,  as  appears  by  the 
secret  journal,  Congress  "  Resolved,  That  the 
Declaration,  passed  on  the  fourth,  be  fairly  en- 
grossed on  parchment,  with  the  title  and  style 
of  '  THE  UNANIMOUS  DECLARATION  OF  THE  THIR- 
TEEN UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA;  '  and  that 
the  same,  when  engrossed,  be  signed  by  every 
member  of  Congress."  And  on  the  SECOND  DAY 
OF  AUGUST  following,  "the  Declaration,  being 
engrossed  and  compared  at  the  table,  was 
signed  by  the  members. "  So  that  it  happens, 
fellow-citizens,  that  we  pay  these  honors  to 
their  memory  on  the  anniversary  of  that  day 
(2d  of  August)  on  which  these  great  men  ac- 
tually signed  their  names  to  the  Declaration. 
The  Declaration  was  thus  made,  that  is,  it 
passed  and  was  adopted  as  an  act  of  Congress, 
on  the  fourth  of  July  ;  it  was  then  signed,  and 
certified  by  the  President  and  Secretary,  like 
other  acts.  The  FOURTH  OF  JULY,  therefore,  is 

the  ANNIVERSARY  OF  THE  DECLARATION.       But  the 

signatures  of  the  members  present  were  made 
29 


Daniel  Webster 

to  it,  being  then  engrossed  on  parchment,  on 
the  second  day  of  August.  Absent  members 
afterwards  signed,  as  they  came  in  ;  and  indeed 
it  bears  the  names  of  some  who  were  not  chosen 
members  of  Congress  until  after  the  fourth  of 
July.  The  interest  belonging  to  the  subject 
will  be  sufficient,  I  hope,  to  justify  these  details. 

The  Congress  of  the  Revolution,  fellow-citi- 
zens, sat  with  closed  doors,  and  no  report  of  its 
debates  was  ever  made.  The  discussion,  there- 
fore, which  accompanied  this  great  measure, 
has  never  been  preserved,  except  in  memory 
and  by  tradition.  But  it  is,  I  believe,  doing  no 
injustice  to  others  to  say,  that  the  general  opin- 
ion was,  and  uniformly  has  been,  that  in  de- 
bate, on  the  side  of  independence,  JOHN  ADAMS 
had  no  equal.  The  great  author  of  the  Declara- 
tion himself  has  expressed  that  opinion  uni- 
formly and  strongly.  "  JOHN  ADAMS,"  said  he, 
in  the  hearing  of  him  who  has  now  the  honor  to 
address  you,  "  JOHN  ADAMS  was  our  colossus  on 
the  floor.  Not  graceful,  not  elegant,  not  always 
fluent,  in  his  public  addresses,  he  yet  came  out 
with  a  power,  both  of  thought  and  of  expres- 
sion, which  moved  us  from  our  seats." 

For  the  part  which  he  was  here  to  perform, 
Mr.  Adams  doubtless  was  eminently  fitted.  He 
possessed  a  bold  spirit,  which  disregarded  dan- 
ger, and  a  sanguine  reliance  on  the  goodness  of 
the  cause,  and  the  virtues  of  the  people,  which 
led  him  to  overlook  all  obstacles.  His  charac- 
ter, too,  had  been  formed  in  troubled  times. 
30 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

He  had  been  rocked  in  the  early  storms  of  the 
controversy,  and  had  acquired  a  decision  and  a 
hardihood  proportioned  to  the  severity  of  the 
discipline  which  he  had  undergone. 

He  not  only  loved  the  American  cause  de- 
voutly, but  had  studied  and  understood  it.  It 
was  all  familiar  to  him.  He  had  tried  his  pow- 
ers on  the  questions  which  it  involved,  often 
and  in  various  ways  ;  and  had  brought  to  their 
consideration  whatever  of  argument  or  illustra- 
tion the  history  of  his  own  country,  the  history 
of  England,  or  the  stores  of  ancient  or  of  legal 
learning  could  furnish.  Every  grievance  enu- 
merated in  the  long  catalogue  of  the  Declara- 
tion had  been  the  subject  of  his  discussion,  and 
the  object  of  his  remonstrance  and  reprobation. 
From  1760,  the  Colonies,  the  rights  of  the  Col- 
onies, the  liberties  of  the  Colonies,  and  the 
wrongs  inflicted  on  the  Colonies,  had  engaged 
his  constant  attention  ;  and  it  has  surprised 
those  who  have  had  the  opportunity  of  witness- 
ing it,  with  what  full  remembrance  and  with 
what  prompt  recollection  he  could  refer,  in  his 
extreme  old  age,  to  every  act  of  Parliament 
affecting  the  Colonies,  distinguishing  and  stat- 
ing their  respective  titles,  sections,  and  pro- 
visions ;  and  to  all  the  Colonial  memorials,  re- 
monstrances, and  petitions,  with  whatever  else 
belonged  to  the  intimate  and  exact  history  of 
the  times  from  that  year  to  1775.  It  was,  in  his 
own  judgment,  between  these  years  that  the 
American  people  came  to  a  full  understanding 


Daniel  Webster 

and  thorough  knowledge  of  their  rights,  and  to 
a  fixed  resolution  of  maintaining  them  ;  and 
bearing  himself  an  active  part  in  all  important 
transactions,  the  controversy  with  England 
being  then  in  effect  the  business  of  his  life, 
facts,  dates,  and  particulars  made  an  impres- 
sion which  was  never  effaced.  He  was  pre- 
pared, therefore,  by  education  and  discipline, 
as  well  as  by  natural  talent  and  natural  tem- 
perament, for  the  part  which  he  was  now  to  act. 
The  eloquence  of  Mr.  Adams  resembled  his 
general  character,  and  formed,  indeed,  a  part 
of  it.  It  was  bold,  manly,  and  energetic  ;  and 
such  the  crisis  required.  When  public  bodies 
are  to  be  addressed  on  momentous  occasions, 
when  great  interests  are  at  stake,  and  strong 
passions  excited,  nothing  is  valuable  in  speech 
farther  than  as  it  is  connected  with  high  intel- 
lectual and  moral  endowments.  Clearness, 
force,  and  earnestness  are  the  qualities  which 
produce  conviction.  True  eloquence,  indeed, 
does  not  consist  in  speech.  It  cannot  be 
brought  from  far.  Labor  and  learning  may 
toil  for  it,  but  they  will  toil  in  vain.  Words 
and  phrases  may  be  marshalled  in  every  way, 
but  they  cannot  compass  it.  It  must  exist  in 
the  man,  in  the  subject,  and  in  the  occasion. 
Affected  passion,  intense  expression,  the  pomp 
of  declamation,  all  may  aspire  to  it  ;  they  can- 
not reach  it.  It  comes,  if  it  come  at  all,  like 
the  outbreaking  of  a  fountain  from  the  earth, 
or  the  bursting  forth  of  volcanic  fires,  with 
32 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

spontaneous,  original ,  native  force.  The  graces 
taught  in  the  schools,  the  costly  ornaments  and 
studied  contrivances  of  speech,  shock  and  dis- 
gust men,  when  their  own  lives,  and  the  fate  of 
their  wives,  their  children,  and  their  country, 
hang  on  the  decision  of  the  hour.  Then  words 
have  lost  their  power,  rhetoric  is  vain,  and  all 
elaborate  oratory  contemptible.  Even  genius 
itself  then  feels  rebuked  and  subdued,  as  in  the 
presence  of  higher  qualities.  Then  patriotism 
is  eloquent  ;  then  self  devotion  is  eloquent. 
The  clear  conception,  outrunning  the  deduc- 
tions of  logic,  the  high  purpose,  the  firm  re- 
solve, the  dauntless  spirit,  speaking  on  the 
tongue,  beaming  from  the  eye,  informing  every 
feature,  and  urging  the  whole  man  onward, 
right  onward  to  his  object — this,  this  is  elo- 
quence ;  or  rather  it  is  something  greater  and 
higher  than  all  eloquence,  it  is  action,  noble, 
sublime,  godlike  action. 

In  July,  1776,  the  controversy  had  passed  the 
stage  of  argument.  An  appeal  had  been  made 
to  force,  and  opposing  armies  were  in  the  field. 
Congress,  then,  was  to  decide  whether  the  tie 
which  had  so  long  bound  us  to  the  parent  state 
was  to  be  severed  at  once,  and  severed  for  ever. 
All  the  Colonies  had  signified  their  resolution 
to  abide  by  this  decision,  and  the  people  looked 
for  it  with  the  most  intense  anxiety.  And 
surely,  fellow-citizens,  never,  never  were  men 
called  to  a  more  important  political  delibera- 
tion. If  we  contemplate  it  from  the  point  where 
33 


Daniel  Webster 

they  then  stood,  no  question  could  be  more  full 
of  interest  ;  if  we  look  at  it  now,  and  judge  of 
its  importance  by  its  effects,  it  appears  of  still 
greater  magnitude. 

Let  us,  then,  bring  before  us  the  assembly, 
which  was  about  to  decide  a  question  thus  big 
with  the  fate  of  empire.  Let  us  open  their 
doors  and  look  in  upon  their  deliberations.  Let 
us  survey  the  anxious  and  care-worn  counte- 
nances, let  us  hear  the  firm-toned  voices,  of  this 
band  of  patriots. 

HANCOCK  presides  over  the  solemn  sitting  ; 
and  one  of  those  not  yet  prepared  to  pronounce 
for  absolute  independence  is  on  the  floor,  and 
is  urging  his  reasons  for  dissenting  from  the 
declaration. 

"  Let  us  pause  !  This  step,  once  taken,  can- 
not be  retraced.  This  resolution,  once  passed, 
will  cut  off  all  hope  of  reconciliation.  If  success 
attend  the  arms  of  England,  we  shall  then  be 
no  longer  Colonies,  with  charters  and  with  priv- 
ileges ;  these  will  all  be  forfeited  by  this  act ; 
and  we  shall  be  in  the  condition  of  other  con- 
quered people,  at  the  mercy  of  the  conquerors. 
For  ourselves,  we  may  be  ready  to  run  the  haz- 
ard ;  but  are  we  ready  to  carry  the  country  to 
that  length  ?  Is  success  so  probable  as  to  justify 
it?  Where  is  the  military,  where  the  naval 
power,  by  which  we  are  to  resist  the  whole 
strength  of  the  arm  of  England,  for  she  will  ex- 
ert that  strength  to  the  utmost  ?  Can  we  rely 
on  the  constancy  and  perseverance  of  the  peo- 
34 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

pie  ?  or  will  they  not  act  as  the  people  of  other 
countries  have  acted,  and,  wearied  with  a  tong 
war,  submit,  in  the  end,  to  a  worse  oppression  ? 
While  we  stand  on  our  old  ground,  and  insist 
on  redress  of  grievances,  we  know  we  are  right, 
and  are  not  answerable  for  consequences. 
Nothing,  then,  can  be  imputed  to  us.  But  if 
we  now  change  our  object,  carry  our  preten- 
sions farther,  and  set  up  for  absolute  indepen- 
dence, we  shall  lose  the  sympathy  of  mankind. 
We  shall  no  longer  be  defending  what  we  pos- 
sess, but  struggling  for  something  which  we 
never  did  possess,  and  which  we  have  solemnly 
and  uniformly  disclaimed  all  intention  of  pur- 
suing, from  the  very  outset  of  the  troubles. 
Abandoning  thus  our  old  ground,  of  resistance 
only  to  arbitrary  acts  of  oppression,  the  nations 
will  believe  the  whole  to  have  been  mere  pre- 
tence, and  they  will  look  on  us,  not  as  injured, 
but  as  ambitious  subjects.  I  shudder  before 
this  responsibility.  It  will  be  on  us,  if,  relin- 
quishing the  ground  on  which  we  have  stood  so 
long,  and  stood  so  safely,  we  now  proclaim  in- 
dependence, and  carry  on  the  war  for  that  ob- 
ject, while  these  cities  burn,  these  pleasant 
fields  whiten  and  bleach  with  the  bones  of  their 
owners,  and  these  streams  run  blood.  It  will 
be  upon  us,  it  will  be  upon  us,  if,  failing  to 
maintain  this  unseasonable  and  ill-judged  dec- 
laration, a  sterner  despotism,  maintained  by 
military  power,  shall  be  established  over  our 
posterity,  when  we  ourselves,  given  up  by  an 
35 


Daniel  Webster 

exhausted,  a  harassed,  a  misled  people,  shall 
have  expiated  our  rashness  and  atoned  for  our 
presumption  on  the  scaffold." 

It  was  for  Mr.  Adams  to  reply  to  arguments 
like  these.  We  know  his  opinions,  and  we 
know  his  character.  He  would  commence  with 
his  accustomed  directness  and  earnestness. 

"  Sink  or  swim,  live  or  die,  survive  or  perish, 
I  give  my  hand  and  my  heart  to  this  vote.  It 
is  true,  indeed,  that  in  the  beginning  we  aimed 
not  at  independence.  But  there's  a  Divinity 
which  shapes  our  ends.  The  injustice  of  Eng- 
land has  driven  us  to  arms  ;  and,  blinded  to 
her  own  interest  for  our  good,  she  has  obsti- 
nately persisted,  till  independence  is  now  within 
our  grasp.  We  have  but  to  reach  forth  to  it, 
and  it  is  ours.  Why,  then,  should  we  defer  the 
Declaration  ?  Is  any  man  so  weak  as  now  to 
hope  for  a  reconciliation  with  England,  which 
shall  leave  either  safety  to  the  country  and  its 
liberties,  or  safety  to  his  own  life  and  his  own 
honor  ?  Are  not  you,  Sir,  who  sit  in  that  chair, 
is  not  he,  our  venerable  colleague  near  you,  are 
you  not  both  already  the  proscribed  and  pre- 
destined objects  of  punishment  and  of  ven- 
geance ?  Cut  off  from  all  hope  of  royal  clem- 
ency, what  are  you,  what  can  you  be,  while  the 
power  of  England  remains,  but  outlaws?  If 
we  postpone  independence,  do  we  mean  to  carry 
on,  or  to  give  up,  the  war  ?  Do  we  mean  to 
submit  to  the  measures  of  Parliament,  Boston 
Port  Bill  and  all  ?  Do  we  mean  to  submit,  and 
36 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

consent  that  we  ourselves  shall  be  ground  to 
powder,  and  our  country  and  its  rights  trodden 
down  in  the  dust  ?  I  know  we  do  not  mean  to 
submit.  We  never  shall  submit.  Do  we  in- 
tend to  violate  that  most  solemn  obligation  ever 
entered  into  by  men,  that  plighting,  before 
God,  of  our  sacred  honor  to  Washington,  when, 
putting  him  forth  to  incur  the  dangers  of  war, 
as  well  as  the  political  hazards  of  the  times,  we 
promised  to  adhere  to  him,  in  every  extremity, 
with  our  fortunes  and  our  lives  ?  I  know  there 
is  not  a  man  here,  who  would  not  rather  see  a 
general  conflagration  sweep  over  the  land,  or 
an  earthquake  sink  it,  than  one  jot  or  tittle  of 
that  plighted  faith  fall  to  the  ground.  For  my- 
self, having,  twelve  months  ago,  in  this  place, 
moved  you,  that  George  Washington  be  ap- 
pointed commander  of  the  forces  raised,  or  to 
be  raised,  for  defence  of  American  liberty,  may 
my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning,  and  my 
tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth,  if  I 
hesitate  or  waver  in  the  support  I  give  him, 

"  The  war,  then,  must  go  on.  We  must 
fight  it  through.  And  if  the  war  must  go  on, 
why  put  off  longer  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence ?  That  measure  will  strengthen  us.  It 
will  give  us  character  abroad.  The  nations 
will  then  treat  with  us,  which  they  never  can 
do  while  we  acknowledge  ourselves  subjects,  in 
arms  against  our  sovereign.  Nay,  I  maintain 
that  England  herself  will  sooner  treat  for  peace 
.with  us  on  the  footing  of  independence,  than 
37 


Daniel  Webster 

consent,  by  repealing  her  acts,  to  acknowledge 
that  her  whole  conduct  towards  us  has  been  a 
course  of  injustice  and  oppression.  Her  pride 
will  be  less  wounded  by  submitting  to  that 
course  of  things  which  now  predestinates  our 
independence,  than  by  yielding  the  points  in 
controversy  to  her  rebellious  subjects.  The 
former  she  would  regard  as  the  result  of  for- 
tune ;  the  latter  she  would  feel  as  her  own  deep 
disgrace.  Why,  then,  why,  then,  Sir,  do  we 
not  as  soon  as  possible  change  this  from  a  civil 
to  a  national  war  ?  And  since  we  must  fight  it 
through,  why  not  put  ourselves  in  a  state  to 
enjoy  all  the  benefits  of  victory,  if  we  gain  the 
victory  ? 

"  If  we  fail,  it  can  be  no  worse  for  us.  But 
we  shall  not  fail.  The  cause  will  raise  up 
armies  ;  the  cause  will  create  navies.  The 
people,  the  people,  if  we  are  true  to  them,  will 
carry  us,  and  will  carry  themselves,  gloriously, 
through  this  struggle.  I  care  not  how  fickle 
other  people  have  been  found.  I  know  the 
people  of  these  Colonies,  and  I  know  that  re- 
sistance to  British  aggression  is  deep  and  set- 
tled in  their  hearts  and  cannot  be  eradicated. 
Every  Colony,  indeed,  has  expressed  its  will- 
ingness to  follow,  if  we  but  take  the  lead.  Sir, 
the  Declaration  will  inspire  the  people  with  in- 
creased courage.  Instead  of  a  long  and  bloody 
war  for  the  restoration  of  privileges,  for  redress 
of  grievances,  for  chartered  immunities,  held 
under  a  British  king,  set  before  them  the  glori- 
38 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

otis  object  of  entire  independence,  and  it  will 
breathe  into  them  anew  the  breath  of  life.  Read 
this  Declaration  at  the  head  of  the  army  ;  every 
sword  will  be  drawn  from  its  scabbard,  and  the 
solemn  vow  uttered,  to  maintain  it,  or  to  perish 
on  the  bed  of  honor.  Publish  it  from  the  pul- 
pit ;  religion  will  approve  it,  and  the  love  of 
religious  liberty  will  cling  round  it,  resolved  to 
stand  with  it,  or  fall  with  it.  Send  it  to  the 
public  halls  ;  proclaim  it  there  ;  -let  them  hear 
it  who  heard  the  first  roar  of  the  enemy's  can- 
non ;  let  them  see  it  who  saw  their  brothers  and 
their  sons  fall  on  the  field  of  Bunker  Hill,  and 
in  the  streets  of  Lexington  and  Concord,  and 
the  very  walls  will  cry  out  in  its  support. 

"  Sir,  I  know  the  uncertainty  of  human  affairs, 
but  I  see,  I  see  clearly,  through  this  day's  busi- 
ness. You  and  I,  indeed,  may  rue  it.  We  may 
not  live  to  the  time  when  this  Declaration  shall 
be  made  good.  We  may  die  ;  die  colonists  ; 
die  slaves  ;  die,  it  may  be,  ignominiously  and 
on  the  scaffold.  Be  it  so.  Be  it  so.  If  it  be 
the  pleasure  of  Heaven  that  my  country  shall 
require  the  poor  offering  of  my  life,  the  victim 
shall  be  ready  at  the  appointed  hour  of  sacri- 
fice, come  when  that  hour  may.  But  while  I  do 
live,  let  me  have  a  country,  or  at  least  the  hope 
of  a  country,  and  that  a  free  country. 

"  But  whatever  may  be  our  fate,  be  assured, 

be  assured  that  this  Declaration  will  stand.     It 

may  cost  treasure,  and  it  may  cost  blood  ;  but 

it  will  stand,  and  it  will  richly  compensate  for 

39 


Daniel  Webster 

both.  Through  the  thick  gloom  of  the  present, 
I  see  the  brightness  of  the  future,  as  the  sun  in 
heaven.  We  shall  make  this  a  glorious,  an  im- 
mortal day.  When  we  are  in  our  graves,  our 
children  will  honor  it.  They  will  celebrate  it 
with  thanksgiving,  with  festivity,  with  bon- 
fires, and  illuminations.  On  its  annual  return 
they  will  shed  tears,  copious,  gushing  tears, 
not  of  subjection  and  slavery,  not  of  agony  and 
distress,  but  of  exultation,  of  gratitude,  and  of 
joy.  Sir,  before  God,  I  believe  the  hour  is 
come.  My  judgment  approves  this  measure, 
and  my  whole  heart  is  in  it.  All  that  I  have, 
and  all  that  I  am,  and  all  that  I  hope,  in  this 
life,  I  am  now  ready  here  to  stake  upon  it  ;  and 
I  leave  off  as  I  begun,  that  live  or  die,  survive 
or  perish,  I  am  for  the  Declaration.  It  is  my 
living  sentiment,  and  by  the  blessing  of  God  it 
shall  be  my  dying  sentiment,  Independence, 
now,  and  INDEPENDENCE  FOR  EVER." 

And  so  that  day  shall  be  honored,  illustrious 
prophet  and  patriot  !  so  that  day  shall  be  hon- 
ored, and  as  often  as  it  returns,  thy  renown 
shall  come  along  with  it,  and  the  glory  of  thy 
life,  like  the  day  of  thy  death,  shall  not  fail 
from  the  remembrance  of  men. 

It  would  be  unjust,  fellow-citizens,  on  this  oc- 
casion, while  we  express  our  veneration  for  him 
who  is  the  immediate  subject  of  these  remarks, 
were  we  to  omit  a  most  respectful,  affectionate, 
and  grateful  mention  of  those  other  great  men, 
40 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

his  colleagues,  who  stood  with  him,  and  with 
the  same  spirit,  the  same  devotion,  took  part  in 
the  interesting  transaction.  HANCOCK,  the  pro- 
scribed HANCOCK,  exiled  from  his  home  by  a 
military  governor,  cut  off  by  proclamation  from 
the  mercy  of  the  crown, — Heaven  reserved  for 
him  the  distinguished  honor  of  putting  this 
great  question  to  the  vote,  and  of  writing  his 
own  name  first,  and  most  conspicuously,  on 
that  parchment  which  spoke  defiance  to  the 
power  of  the  crown  of  England.  There,  too,  is 
the  name  of  that  other  proscribed  patriot,  SAM- 
UEL ADAMS,  a  man  who  hungered  and  thirsted 
for  the  independence  of  his  country ;  who 
thought  the  Declaration  halted  and  lingered, 
being  himself  not  only  ready,  but  eager,  for  it, 
long  before  it  was  proposed  ;  a  man  of  the  deep- 
est sagacity,  the  clearest  foresight,  and  the  pro- 
foundest  judgment  in  men.  And  there  is 
GERRY,  himself  among  the  earliest  and  the  fore- 
most of  the  patriots,  found,  when  the  battle  of 
Lexington  summoned  them  to  common  coun- 
sels, by  the  side  of  WARREN  ;  a  man  who  lived 
to  serve  his  country  at  home  and  abroad,  and 
to  die  in  the  second  place  in  the  government. 
There,  too,  is  the  inflexible,  the  upright,  the 
Spartan  character,  ROBERT  TREAT  PAINE.  He 
also  lived  to  serve  his  country  through  the 
struggle,  and  then  withdrew  from  her  councils, 
only  that  he  might  give  his  labors  and  his  life 
to  his  native  State,  in  another  relation.  These 
names,  fellow-citizens,  are  the  treasures  of  the 
41 


Daniel  Webster 

Commonwealth  ;  and  they  are  treasures  which 
grow  brighter  by  time. 

It  is  now  necessary  to  resume  the  narrative, 
and  to  finish  with  great  brevity  the  notice  of 
the  lives  of  those  whose  virtues  and  services  we 
have  met  to  commemorate. 

Mr.  Adams  remained  in  Congress  from  its 
first  meeting  till  November,  1777,  when  he  was 
appointed  Minister  to  France.  He  proceeded 
on  that  service  in  the  February  following,  em- 
barking in  the  frigate  Boston,  from  the  shore 
of  his  native  town,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Wollas- 
ton.  The  year  following,  he  was  appointed 
commissioner  to  treat  of  peace  with  England. 
Returning  to  the  United  States,  he  was  a  dele- 
gate from  Braintree  in  the  Convention  for  fram- 
ing the  Constitution  of  this  Commonwealth,  in 
1780.  At  the  latter  end  of  the  same  year,  he 
again  went  abroad  in  the  diplomatic  service 
of  the  country,  and  was  employed  at  various 
courts,  and  occupied  with  various  negotia- 
tions, until  1788.  The  particulars  of  these 
interesting  and  important  services  this  oc- 
casion does  not  allow  time  to  relate.  In  1782 
he  concluded  our  first  treaty  with  Holland.  His 
negotiations  with  that  republic,  his  efforts  to 
persuade  the  States-General  to  recognize  our 
independence,  his  incessant  and  indefatigable 
exertions  to  represent  the  American  cause 
favorably  on  the  Continent,  and  to  counteract 
the  designs  of  its  enemies,  open  and  secret,  and 
42 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

his  successful  undertaking  to  obtain  loans,  on 
the  credit  of  a  nation  yet  new  and  unknown, 
are  among  his  most  arduous,  most  useful,  most 
honorable  services.  It  was  his  fortune  to  bear 
a  part  in  the  negotiation  for  peace  with  Eng- 
land, and  in  something  more  than  six  years 
from  the  Declaration  which  he  had  so  strenu- 
ously supported,  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  see- 
ing the  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  crown 
subscribe  his  name  to  the  instrument  which  de- 
clared that  his  "  Britannic  Majesty  acknowl- 
edged the  United  States  to  be  free,  sovereign, 
and  independent."  In  these  important  trans- 
actions, Mr.  Adams's  conduct  received  the 
marked  approbation  of  Congress  and  of  the 
country. 

While  abroad,  in  1787,  he  published  his  De- 
fence of  the  American  Constitutions  ;  a  work 
of  merit  and  ability,  though  composed  with 
haste,  on  the  spur  of  a  particular  occasion,  in 
the  midst  of  other  occupations,  and  under  cir- 
cumstances not  admitting  of  careful  revision. 
The  immediate  object  of  the  work  was  to  coun- 
teract the  weight  of  opinions  advanced  by  sev- 
eral popular  European  writers  of  that  day, 
M.  Turgot,  the  Abbe  de  Mably,  and  Dr.  Price, 
at  a  time  when  the  people  of  the  United  States 
were  employed  in  forming  and  revising  their 
systems  of  government. 

Returning  to  the  United  States  in  1788,  he 
found  the  new  government  about  going  into 
operation,  and  was  himself  elected  the  first 
43 


Daniel  Webster 

Vice-Prestdent,  a  situation  which  he  filled  with 
reputation  for  eight  years,  at  the  expiration  of 
which  he  was  raised  to  the  Presidential  chair, 
as  immediate  successor  to  the  immortal  Wash- 
ington. In  this  high  station  he  was  succeeded 
by  Mr.  Jefferson,  after  a  memorable  contro- 
versy between  their  respective  friends,  in  1801  ; 
and  from  that  period  his  manner  of  life  has 
been  known  to  all  who  hear  me.  He  has  lived, 
for  five-and-twenty  years,  with  every  enjoyment 
that  could  render  old  age  happy.  Not  inatten- 
tive to  the  occurrences  of  the  times,  political 
cares  have  yet  not  materially,  or  for  any  long 
time,  disturbed  his  repose.  In  1820  he  acted  as 
elector  of  President  and  Vice-President,  and  in 
the  same  year  we  saw  him,  then  at  the  age  of 
eighty-five,  a  member  of  the  Convention  of  this 
Commonwealth  called  to  revise  the  Constitu- 
tion. Forty  years  before,  he  had  been  one  of 
those  who  formed  that  Constitution  ;  and  he 
had  now  the  pleasure  of  witnessing  that  there 
was  little  which  the  people  desired  to  change. 
Possessing  all  his  faculties  to  the  end  of  his  long 
life,  with  an  unabated  love  of  reading  and  con- 
templation, in  the  centre  of  interesting  circles 
of  friendship  and  affection,  he  was  blessed  in 
his  retirement  with  whatever  of  repose  and 
felicity  the  condition  of  man  allows.  He  had, 
also,  other  enjoyments.  He  saw  around  him 
that  prosperity  and  general  happiness  which 
had  been  the  object  of  his  public  cares  and  la- 
bors. No  man  ever  beheld  more  clearly,  and 
44 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

for  a  longer  time,  the  great  and  beneficial 
effects  of  the  services  rendered  by  himself  to 
his  country.  That  liberty  which  he  so  early 
defended,  that  independence  of  which  he  was 
so  able  an  advocate  and  supporter,  he  saw,  we 
trust,  firmly  and  securely  established.  The 
population  of  the  country  thickened  around 
him  faster,  and  extended  wider,  than  his  own 
sanguine  predictions  had  anticipated  ;  and  the 
wealth,  respectability,  and  power  of  the  nation 
sprang  up  to  a  magnitude  which  it  is  quite  im- 
possible he  could  have  expected  to  witness  in 
his  day.  He  lived  also  to  behold  those  princi- 
ples of  civil  freedom  which  had  been  developed, 
established,  and  practically  applied  in  America, 
attract  attention,  command  respect,  and  awaken 
imitation,  in  other  regions  of  the  globe  ;  and 
well  might,  and  well  did,  he  exclaim,  "  Where 
will  the  consequences  of  the  American  Revolu- 
tion end?" 

If  any  thing  yet  remain  to  fill  this  cup  of  hap- 
piness, let  it  be  added,  that  he  lived  to  see  a 
great  and  intelligent  people  bestow  the  highest 
honor  in  their  gift  where  he  had  bestowed  his 
own  kindest  parental  affections  and  lodged  his 
fondest  hopes.  Thus  honored  in  life,  thus 
happy  at  death,  he  saw  the  JUBILEE,  and  he 
died  ;  and  with  the  last  prayers  which  trembled 
on  his  lips  was  the  fervent  supplication  for  his 
country,  "  Independence  for  ever  !  " 

Mr.  Jefferson,  having  been  occupied  in  the 
45 


Daniel  Webster 

years  1778  and  1779  in  the  important  service  of 
revising  the  laws  of  Virginia,  was  elected  Gov- 
ernor of  that  State,  as  successor  to  Patrick 
Henry,  and  held  the  situation  when  the  State 
was  invaded  by  the  British  arms.  In  1781  he 
published  his  Notes  on  Virginia,  a  work  which 
attracted  attention  in  Europe  as  well  as  Ameri- 
ca, dispelled  many  misconceptions  respecting 
this  continent,  and  gave  its  author  a  place 
among  men  distinguished  for  science.  In  No- 
vember, 1783,  he  again  took  his  seat  in  the  Con- 
tinental Congress,  but  in  the  May  following 
was  appointed  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  to  act 
abroad,  in  the  negotiation  of  commercial  treaties 
with  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Adams.  He  pro- 
ceeded to  France  in  execution  of  this  mission, 
embarking  at  Boston  ;  and  that  was  the  only 
occasion  on  which  he  ever  visited  this  place. 
In  1785  he  was  appointed  Minister  to  France, 
the  duties  of  which  situation  he  continued  to 
perform  until  October,  1789,  when  he  obtained 
leave  to  retire,  just  on  the  eve  of  that  tremen- 
dous revolution  which  has  so  much  agitated  the 
world  in  our  times.  Mr.  Jefferson's  discharge 
of  his  diplomatic  duties  was  marked  by  great 
ability,  diligence,  and  patriotism  ;  and  while 
he  resided  at  Paris,  in  one  of  the  most  interest- 
ing periods,  his  character  for  intelligence,  his 
love  of  knowledge  and  of  the  society  of  learned 
men,  distinguished  him  in  the  highest  circles  of 
the  French  capital.  No  court  in  Europe  had  at 
that  time  in  Paris  a  representative  commanding 
46 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

or  enjoying  higher  regard,  for  political  knowl- 
edge or  for  general  attainments,  than  the  min- 
ister of  this  then  infant  republic.  Immediately 
on  his  return  to  his  native  country,  at  the  or- 
ganization of  the  government  under  the  present 
Constitution,  his  talents  and  experience  recom- 
mended him  to  President  Washington  for  the 
first  office  in  his  gift.  He  was  placed  at  the 
head  of  the  Department  of  State.  In  this  situ- 
ation, also,  he  manifested  conspicuous  ability. 
His  correspondence  with  the  ministers  of  other 
powers  residing  here,  and  his  instructions  to 
our  own  diplomatic  agents  abroad,  are  among 
our  ablest  state  papers.  A  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  the  laws  and  usages  of  nations,  perfect 
acquaintance  with  the  immediate  subject  before 
him,  great  felicity,  and  still  greater  facility,  in 
writing,  show  themselves  in  whatever  effort  his 
official  situation  called  on  him  to  make.  It  is 
believed  by  competent  judges,  that  the  diplo- 
matic intercourse  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  from  the  first  meeting  of  the 
Continental  Congress  in  1774  to  the  present 
time,  taken  together,  would  not  suffer,  in  re- 
spect to  the  talent  with  which  it  has  been  con- 
ducted, by  comparison  with  any  thing  which 
other  and  older  governments  can  produce  ;  and 
to  the  attainment  of  this  respectability  and  dis- 
tinction Mr.  Jefferson  has  contributed  his  full 
part. 

On  the  retirement  of   General  Washington 
from  the  Presidency,  and  the  election  of  Mr. 
47 


Daniel   Webster 

Adams  to  that  office  in  1797,  he  was  chosen 
Vice-President.  While  presiding  in  this  capac- 
ity over  the  deliberations  of  the  Senate,  he 
compiled  and  published  a  Manual  of  Parliamen- 
tary Practice,  a  work  of  more  labor  and  more 
merit  than  is  indicated  by  its  size.  It  is  now 
received  as  the  general  standard  by  which  pro- 
ceedings are  regulated,  not  only  in  both  Houses 
of  Congress,  but  in  most  of  the  other  legislative 
bodies  in  the  country.  In  1801  he  was  elected 
President,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Adams,  and  re- 
elected  in  1805,  by  a  vote  approaching  towards 
unanimity. 

From  the  time  of  his  final  retirement  from 
public  life,  in  1808,  Mr.  Jefferson  lived  as  be- 
came a  wise  man.  Surrounded  by  affectionate 
friends,  his  ardor  in  the  pursuit  of  knowledge 
undiminished,  with  uncommon  health  and  un- 
broken spirits,  he  was  able  to  enjoy  largely  the 
rational  pleasures  of  life,  and  to  partake  in  that 
public  prosperity  which  he  had  so  much  con- 
tributed to  produce.  His  kindness  and  hos- 
pitality, the  charm  of  his  conversation,  the  ease 
of  his  manners,  the  extent  of  his  acquirements, 
and,  especially,  the  full  store  of  Revolutionary 
incidents  which  he  had  treasured  in  his  mem- 
ory, and  which  he  knew  when  and  how  to  dis- 
pense, rendered  his  abode  in  a  high  degree  at- 
tractive to  his  admiring  countrymen,  while  his 
high  public  and  scientific  character  drew  tow- 
ards him  every  intelligent  and  educated  travel- 
ler from  abroad.  Both  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr. 
48 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

Jefferson  had  the  pleasure  of  knowing  that  the 
respect  which  they  so  largely  received  was  not 
paid  to  their  official  stations.  They  were  not 
men  made  great  by  office  ;  but  great  men,  on 
whom  the  country  for  its  own  benefit  had  con- 
ferred office.  There  was  that  in  them  which 
office  did  not  give,  and  which  the  relinquish- 
ment  of  office  did  not,  and  could  not,  take  away. 
In  their  retirement,  in  the  midst  of  their  fellow- 
citizens,  themselves  private  citizens,  they  en- 
joyed as  high  regard  and  esteem  as  when  filling 
the  most  important  places  of  public  trust. 

There  remained  to  Mr.  Jefferson  yet  one 
other  work  of  patriotism  and  beneficence,  the 
establishment  of  a  university  in  his  native  State. 
To  this  object  he  devoted  'years  of  incessant 
and  anxious  attention,  and  by  the  enlightened 
liberality  of  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  and 
the  cooperation  of  other  able  and  zealous 
friends,  he  lived  to  see  it  accomplished.  May 
all  success  attend  this  infant  seminary  ;  and 
may  those  who  enjoy  its  advantages,  as  often 
as  their  eyes  shall  rest  on  the  neighboring 
height,  recollect  what  they  owe  to  their  disin- 
terested and  indefatigable  benefactor;  and 
may  letters  honor  him  who  thus  labored  in  the 
cause  of  letters  ! 

Thus  useful,  and  thus  respected,  passed  the 
old  age  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  But  time  was  on 
its  ever-ceaseless  wing,  and  was  now  bringing 
the  last  hour  of  this  illustrious  man.  He  saw 
its  approach  with  undisturbed  serenity.  He 
49 


Daniel  Webster 

counted  the  moments  as  they  passed,  and  be- 
held that  his  last  sands  were  falling.  That 
day,  too,  was  at  hand  which  he  had  helped  to 
make  immortal.  One  wish,  one  hope,  if  it  were 
not  presumptuous,  beat  in  his  fainting  breast. 
Could  it  be  so,  might  it  please  God,  he  would 
desire  once  more  to  see  the  sun,  once  more  to 
look  abroad  on  the  scene  around  him,  on  the 
great  day  of  liberty.  Heaven,  in  its  mercy, 
fulfilled  that  prayer.  He  saw  that  sun,  he  en- 
joyed its  sacred  light,  he  thanked  God  for  this 
mercy,  and  bowed  his  aged  head  to  the  grave. 
"  Felix,  non  vitse  tantum  claritate,  sed  etiam 
opportunitate  mortis." 

The  last  public  labor  of  Mr.  Jefferson  natu- 
rally suggests  the  expression  of  the  high  praise 
which  is  due,  both  to  him  and  to  Mr.  Adams, 
for  their  uniform  and  zealous  attachment  to 
learning,  and  to  the  cause  of  general  knowl- 
edge. Of  the  advantages  of  learning,  indeed, 
and  of  literary  accomplishments,  their  own 
characters  were  striking  recommendations  and 
illustrations.  They  were  scholars,  ripe  and 
good  scholars  ;  widely  acquainted  with  ancient, 
as  well  as  modern  literature,  and  not  altogether 
tminstructed  in  the  deeper  sciences.  Their  ac- 
quirements, doubtless,  were  different,  and  so 
were  the  particular  objects  of  their  literary  pur- 
suits ;  as  their  tastes  and  characters,  in  these 
respects,  differed  like  those  of  other  men. 
Being,  also,  men  of  busy  lives,  with  great  ob- 
jects requiring  action  constantly  before  them, 
50 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

their  attainments  in  letters  did  not  become 
showy  or  obtrusive.  Yet  I  would  hazard  the 
opinion,  that,  if  we  could  now  ascertain  all  the 
causes  which  gave  them  eminence  and  distinc- 
tion in  the  midst  of  the  great  men  with  whom 
they  acted,  we  should  find  not  among  the  least 
their  early  acquisitions  in  literature,  the  re- 
sources which  it  furnished,  the  promptitude  and 
facility  which  it  communicated,  and  the  wide 
field  it  opened  for  analogy  and  illustration  ; 
giving  them  thus,  on  every  subject,  a  larger 
view  and  a  broader  range,  as  well  for  discus- 
sion as  for  the  government  of  their  own  con- 
duct. 

Literature  sometimes  disgusts,  and  preten- 
sion to  it  much  oftener  disgusts,  by  appearing 
to  hang  loosely  on  the  character,  like  some- 
thing foreign  or  extraneous,  not  a  part,  but  an 
ill-adjusted  appendage  ;  or  by  seeming  to  over- 
load and  weigh  it  down  by  its  unsightly  bulk, 
like  the  productions  of  bad  taste  in  architec- 
ture, where  there  is  massy  and  cumbrous  orna- 
ment without  strength  or  solidity  of  column. 
This  has  exposed  learning,  and  especially  classi- 
cal learning,  to  reproach.  Men  have  seen  that 
it  might  exist  without  mental  superiority,  with- 
out vigor,  without  good  taste,  and  without 
utility.  But  in  such  cases  classical  learning  has 
only  not  inspired  natural  talent  ;  or,  at  most,  it 
has  but  made  original  feebleness  of  intellect, 
and  natural  bluntness  of  perception,  something 
more  conspicuous.  The  question,  after  all,  if  it 


Daniel   Webster 

be  a  question,  is,  whether  literature,  ancient  as 
well  as  modern,  does  not  assist  a  good  under- 
standing, improve  natural  good  taste,  add  pol- 
ished armor  to  native  strength,  and  render  its 
possessor,  not  only  more  capable  of  deriving 
private  happiness  from  contemplation  and  re- 
flection, but  more  accomplished  also  for  action 
in  the  affairs  of  life,  and  especially  for  public 
action.  Those  whose  memories  we  now  honor 
were  learned  men  ;  but  their  learning  was  kept 
in  its  proper  place,  and  made  subservient  to 
the  uses  and  objects  of  life.  They  were  schol- 
ars, not  common  nor  superficial  ;  but  their 
scholarship  was  so  in  keeping  with  their  char- 
acter, so  blended  and  inwrought,  that  careless 
observers,  or  bad  judges,  not  seeing  an  osten- 
tatious display  of  it,  might  infer  that  it  did  not 
exist  ;  forgetting,  or  not  knowing,  that  classical 
learning  in  men  who  act  in  conspicuous  public 
stations,  perform  duties  which  exercise  the  fac- 
ulty of  writing,  or  address  popular,  delibera- 
tive, or  judicial  bodies,  is  often  felt  where  it  is 
little  seen,  and  sometimes  felt  more  effectually 
because  it  is  not  seen  at  all. 

But  the  cause  of  knowledge,  in  a  more  en- 
larged sense,  the  cause  of  general  knowledge 
and  of  popular  education,  had  no  warmer 
friends,  nor  more  powerful  advocates,  than  Mr. 
Adams  and  Mr.  Jefferson.  On  this  foundation 
they  knew  the  whole  republican  system  rested  ; 
and  this  great  and  all  important  truth  they 
strove  to  impress,  by  all  the  means  in  their 
52 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

power.  In  the  early  publication  already  re- 
ferred to,  Mr.  Adams  expresses  the  strong  and 
just  sentiment,  that  the  education  of  the  poor 
is  more  important,  even  to  the  rich  themselves, 
than  all  their  own  riches.  On  this  great  truth, 
indeed,  is  founded  that  unrivalled,  that  invalu- 
able political  and  moral  institution,  our  own 
blessing  and  the  glory  of  our  fathers,  the  New 
England  system  of  free  schools. 

As  the  promotion  of  knowledge  had  been  the 
object  of  their  regard  through  life,  so  these 
great  men  made  it  the  subject  of  their  testa- 
mentary bounty.  Mr.  Jefferson  is  understood 
to  have  bequeathed  his  library  to  the  Univer- 
sity of  Virginia,  and  that  of  Mr.  Adams  is  be- 
stowed on  the  inhabitants  of  Quincy. 

Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  fellow-citizens, 
were  successively  Presidents  of  the  United 
States.  The  comparative  merits  of  their  re- 
spective administrations  for  a  long  time  agi- 
tated and  divided  public  opinion.  They  were 
rivals,  each  supported  by  numerous  and  power- 
ful portions  of  the  people,  for  the  highest  office. 
This  contest,  partly  the  cause  and  partly  the 
consequence  of  the  long  existence  of  two  great 
political  parties  in  the  country,  is  now  part  of 
the  history  of  our  government.  We  may  natu- 
rally regret  that  any  thing  should  have  occurred 
to  create  difference  and  discord  between  those 
who  had  acted  harmoniously  and  efficiently  in 
the  great  concerns  of  the  Revolution.  But  this 
is  not  the  time,  nor  this  the  occasion,  for  enter- 
53 


Daniel  Webster 

ing  into  the  grounds  of  that  difference,  or  for 
attempting  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  ques- 
tions which  it  involves.  As  practical  questions, 
they  were  canvassed  when  the  measures  which 
they  regarded  were  acted  on  and  adopted  ;  and 
as  belonging  to  history,  the  time  has  not  come 
for  their  consideration. 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  wonderful,  that,  when  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  first  went  into 
operation,  different  opinions  should  be  enter- 
tained as  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  conferred 
by  it.  Here  was  a  natural  source  of  diversity 
of  sentiment.  It  is  still  less  wonderful,  that 
that  event,  nearly  contemporary  with  our  gov- 
ernment under  the  present  Constitution,  which 
so  entirely  shocked  all  Europe,  and  disturbed 
our  relations  with  her  leading  powers,  should 
be  thought,  by  different  men,  to  have  different 
bearings  on  our  own  prosperity;  and  that  the 
early  measures  adopted  by  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  in  consequence  of  this  new 
state  of  things,  should  be  seen  in  opposite 
lights.  It  is  for  the  future  historian,  when  what 
now  remains  of  prejudice  and  misconception 
shall  have  passed  away,  to  state  these  different 
opinions,  and  pronounce  impartial  judgment. 
In  the  mean  time,  all  good  men  rejoice,  and 
well  may  rejoice,  that  the  sharpest  differences 
sprung  out  of  measures  which,  whether  right 
or  wrong,  have  ceased  with  the  exigencies  that 
gave  them  birth,  and  have  left  no  permanent 
effect,  either  on  the  Constitution  or  on  the  gen- 
54 


Adarns  and  Jefferson 

eral  prosperity  of  the  country.  This  remark, 
I  am  aware,  may  be  supposed  to  have  its  ex- 
ception in  one  measure,  the  alteration  of  the 
Constitution  as  to  the  mode  of  choosing  Presi- 
dent ;  but  it  is  true  in  its  general  application. 
Thus  the  course  of  policy  pursued  towards 
France  in  1798,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  meas- 
ures of  commercial  restriction  commenced  in 
1807,  on  the  other,  both  subjects  of  warm  and 
severe  opposition,  have  passed  away  and  left 
nothing  behind  them.  They  were  temporary, 
and  whether  wise  or  unwise,  their  consequences 
were  limited  to  their  respective  occasions.  It 
is  equally  clear,  at  the  same  time,  and  it  is 
equally  gratifying,  that  those  measures  of  both 
administrations  which  were  of  durable  impor- 
tance, and  which  drew  after  them  momentous 
and  long  remaining  consequences,  have  re- 
ceived general  approbation.  Such  was  the  or- 
ganization, or  rather  the  creation,  of  the  navy, 
in  the  administration  of  Mr.  Adams  ;  such  the 
acquisition  of  Louisiana,  in  that  of  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son. The  country,  it  may  safely  be  added,  is 
not  likely  to  be  willing  either  to  approve,  or  to 
reprobate,  indiscriminately,  and  in  the  aggre- 
gate, all  the  measures  of  either,  or  of  any,  ad- 
ministration. The  dictate  of  reason  and  of  jus- 
tice is,  that,  holding  each  one  his  own  senti- 
ments on  the  points  of  difference,  we  imitate 
the  great  men  themselves  in  the  forbearance 
and  moderation  which  they  have  cherished,  and 
in  the  mutual  respect  and  kindness  which  they 
55 


Daniel   Webster 

have  been  so  much  inclined  to  feel  and  to  re- 
ciprocate. 

No  men,  fellow-citizens,  ever  served  their 
country  with  more  entire  exemption  from  every 
imputation  of  selfish  and  mercenary  motives, 
than  those  to  -whose  memory  we  are  paying 
these  proofs  of  respect.  A  suspicion  of  any 
disposition  to  enrich  themselves,  or  to  profit  by 
their  public  employments,  never  rested  on 
either.  No  sordid  motive  approached  them. 
The  inheritance  which  they  have  left  to  their 
children  is  of  their  character  and  their  fame. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  will  detain  you  no  longer 
by  this  faint  and  feeble  tribute  to  the  memory 
of  the  illustrious  dead.  Even  in  other  hands, 
adequate  justice  could  not  be  done  to  them, 
within  the  limits  of  this  occasion.  Their  high- 
est, their  best  praise,  is  your  deep  conviction 
of  their  merits,  your  affectionate  gratitude  for 
their  labors  and  their  services.  It  is  not  my 
voice,  it  is  this  cessation  of  ordinary  pursuits, 
this  arresting  of  all  attention,  these  solemn  cere- 
monies, and  this  crowded  house,  which  speak 
their  eulogy.  Their  fame,  indeed,  is  safe. 
That  is  now  treasured  up  beyond  the  reach  of 
accident.  Although  no  sculptured  marble 
should  rise  to  their  memory,  nor  engraved  stone 
bear  record  of  their  deeds,  yet  will  their  re- 
membrance be  as  lasting  as  the  land  they  hon- 
ored. Marble  columns  may,  indeed,  moulder 
into  dust,  time  may  erase  all  impress  from  the 
crumbling  stone,  but  their  fame  remains  ;  for 
56 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

with  AMERICAN  LIBERTY  it  rose,  and  with  AMERI- 
CAN LIBERTY  ONLY  can  it  perish.  It  was  the  last 
swelling  peal  of  yonder  choir,  "  THEIR  BODIES 

ARE    BURIED    IN    PEACE,    BUT    THEIR    NAME   I.IVETH 

EVERMORE."  I  catch  that  solemn  song,  I  echo 
that  lofty  strain  of  funeral  triumph,  "  THEIR 

NAME  LIVETH  EVERMORE." 

Of  the  illustrious  signers  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  there  now  remains  only 
CHARLES  CARROLL.  He  seems  an  aged  oak, 
standing  alone  on  the  plain,  which  time  has 
spared  a  little  longer  after  all  its  contemporaries 
have  been  levelled  with  the  dust.  Venerable 
object  !  we  delight  to  gather  round  its  trunk, 
while  yet  it  stands,  and  to  dwell  beneath  its 
shadow.  Sole  survivor  of  an  assembly  of  as 
great  men  as  the  world  has  witnessed,  in  a 
transaction  one  of  the  most  important  that  his- 
tory records,  what  thoughts,  what  interesting 
reflections,  must  fill  his  elevated  and  devout 
soul  !  If  he  dwell  on  the  past,  how  touching  its 
recollections  ;  if  he  survey  the  present,  how 
happy,  how  joyous,  how  full  of  the  fruition  of 
that  hope,  which  his  ardent  patriotism  in- 
dulged ;  if  he  glance  at  the  future,  how  does 
the  prospect  of  his  country's  advancement  al- 
most bewilder  his  weakened  conception  ?  For- 
tunate, distinguished  patriot  !  Interesting  relic 
of  the  past  !  Let  him  know  that,  while  we 
honor  the  dead,  we  do  not  forget  the  living  ; 
and  that  there  is  not  a  heart  here  which  does 
57 


Daniel   Webster 

not  fervently  pray,  that  Heaven  may  keep  him 
yet  back  from  the  society  of  his  companions. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  let  us  not  retire 
from  this  occasion  without  a  deep  and  solemn 
conviction  of  the  duties  which  have  devolved 
upon  us.  This  lovely  land,  this  glorious  lib- 
erty, these  benign  institutions,  the  dear  pur- 
chase of  our  fathers,  are  ours  ;  ours  to  enjoy, 
ours  to  preserve,  ours  to  transmit.  Generations 
past  and  generations  to  come  hold  us  responsi- 
ble for  this  sacred  trust.  Our  fathers,  from  be- 
hind, admonish  us,  with  their  anxious  paternal 
voices  ;  posterity  calls  out  to  us,  from  the  bosom 
of  the  future  ;  the  world  turns  hither  its  solici- 
tous eyes  ;  all,  all  conjure  us  to  act  wisely,  and 
faithfully,  in  the  relation  which  we  sustain. 
We  can  never,  indeed,  pay  the  debt  which  is 
upon  us  ;  but  by  virtue,  by  morality,  by  relig- 
ion, by  the  cultivation  of  every  good  principle 
and  every  good  habit,  we  may  hope  to  enjoy 
the  blessing,  through  our  day,  and  to  leave  it 
unimpaired  to  our  children.  Let  us  feel  deeply 
how  much  of  what  we  are  and  of  what  we  pos- 
sess we  owe  to  this  liberty,  and  to  these  institu- 
tions of  government.  Nature  has,  indeed,  given 
us  a  soil  which  yields  bounteously  to  the  hand  of 
industry,  the  mighty  and  fruitful  ocean  is  be- 
fore us,  and  the  skies  over  our  heads  shed  health 
and  vigor.  But  what  are  lands,  and  seas,  and 
skies,  to  civilized  man,  without  society,  without 
knowledge,  without  morals,  without  religious 
53 


Adams  and  Jefferson 

culture  ;  and  how  can  these  be  enjoyed,  in  all 
their  extent  and  all  their  excellence,  but  under 
the  protection  of  wise  institutions  and  a  free 
government  ?  Fellow-citizens,  there  is  not  one 
of  us,  there  is  not  one  of  us  here  present,  who 
does  not,  at  this  moment,  and  at  every  moment, 
experience,  in  his  own  condition,  and  in  the 
condition  of  those  most  near  and  dear  to  him, 
the  influence  and  the  benefits  of  this  liberty 
and  these  institutions.  Let  us  then  acknowl- 
edge the  blessing,  let  us  feel  it  deeply  and  pow- 
erfully, let  us  cherish  a  strong  affection  for  it, 
and  resolve  to  maintain  and  perpetuate  it.  The 
blood  of  our  fathers,  let  it  not  have  been  shed 
in  vain  ;  the  great  hope  of  posterity,  let  it  not 
be  blasted. 

The  striking  attitude,  too,  in  which  we  stand 
to  the  world  around  us,  a  topic  to  which,  I  fear, 
I  advert  too  often,  and  dwell  on  too  long,  can- 
not be  altogether  omitted  here.  Neither  indi- 
viduals nor  nations  can  perform  their  part  well, 
until  they  understand  and  feel  its  importance, 
and  comprehend  and  justly  appreciate  all  the 
duties  belonging  to  it.  It  is  not  to  inflate  national 
vanity,  nor  to  swell  a  light  and  empty  feeling 
of  self-importance,  but  it  is  that  we  may  judge 
justly  of  our  situation,  and  of  our  own  duties,  that 
I  earnestly  urge  upon  you  this  consideration  of 
our  position  and  our  character  among  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth.  It  cannot  be  denied,  but  by 
those  who  would  dispute  against  the  sun,  that 
with  America,  and  in  America,  a  new  era  com- 
59 


Daniel  Webster 

mences  in  human  affairs.  This  era  is  distin- 
guished by  free  representative  governments, 
by  entire  religious  liberty,  by  improved  systems 
of  national  intercourse,  by  a  newly  awakened 
and  an  unconquerable  spirit  of  free  inquiry,  and 
by  a  diffusion  of  knowledge  through  the  com- 
munity, such  as  has  been  before  altogether  un- 
known and  unheard  of.  America,  America, 
our  country,  fellow-citizens,  our  own  dear  and 
native  land,  is  inseparably  connected,  fast 
bound  up,  in  fortune  and  by  fate,  with  these 
great  interests.  If  they  fall,  we  fall  with  them  ; 
if  they  stand,  it  will  be  because  we  have  main- 
tained them.  Let  us  contemplate,  then,  this 
connection,  which  binds  the  prosperity  of  others 
to  our  own  ;  and  let  us  manfully  discharge  all 
the  duties  which  it  imposes.  If  we  cherish  the 
virtues  and  the  principles  of  our  fathers,  Heaven 
will  assist  us  to  carry  on  the  work  of  human 
liberty  and  human  happiness.  Auspicious 
omens  cheer  us.  Great  examples  are  before 
us.  Our  own  firmament  now  shines  brightly 
upon  our  path.  WASHINGTON  is  in  the  clear, 
upper  sky.  These  other  stars  have  now  joined 
the  American  constellation  ;  they  circle  round 
their  centre,  and  the  heavens  beam  with  new 
light.  Beneath  this  illumination  let  us  walk  the 
course  of  life,  and  at  its  close  devoutly  com- 
mend our  beloved  country,  the  common  parent 
of  us  all,  to  the  Divine  Benignity. 


Reply  to  Hayne 


61 


Reply  to  Hayne 

[Usually  printed  in  editions  of  Webster's 
Works  as  the  Second  Speech  on  Foot's  Resolu- 
tion.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT, — When  the  mariner  has  been 
tossed  for  many  days  in  thick  weather,  and  on 
an  unknown  sea,  he  naturally  avails  himself  of 
the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest  glance 
of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude,  and  ascertain 
how  far  the  elements  have  driven  him  from  his 
true  course.  Let  us  imitate  this  prudence,  and, 
before  we  float  farther  oil  the  waves  of  this  de- 
bate, refer  to  the  point  from  which  we  departed, 
that  we  may  at  least  be  able  to  conjecture 
where  we  now  are.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of 
the  resolution  before  the  Senate. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as  follows  : — 
"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  be 
instructed  to  inquire  and  report  the  quantity  of  public 
lands  remaining  unsold  within  each  State  and  Terri- 
tory, and  whether  it  be  expedient  to  limit  for  a  certain 
period  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  such  lands  only 
as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for  sale,  and  are  now 
subject  to  entry  at  the  minimum  price.  And,  also, 
whether  the  office  of  Surveyor-General,  and  some  of 
the  land  offices,  may  not  be  abolished  without  detri- 
ment to  the  public  interest ;  or  whether  it  be  expedi- 
ent to  adopt  measures  to  hasten  the  sales  and  extend 
more  rapidly  the  surveys  of  the  public  lands." 
63 


Daniel  Webster 

We  have  thus  heard,  Sir,  what  the  resolution 
is  which  is  actually  before  us  for  consideration  ; 
and  it  will  readily  occur  to  every  one,  that  it  is 
almost  the  only  subject  about  which  something 
has  not  been  said  in  the  speech,  running 
through  two  days,  by  which  the  Senate  has 
been  entertained  by  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina.  Every  topic  in  the  wide  range  of  our 
public  affairs,  whether  past  or  present, — every- 
thing, general  or  local,  whether  belonging  to 
national  politics  or  party  politics, — seems  to 
have  attracted  more  or  less  of  the  honorable 
member's  attention,  save  only  the  resolution 
before  the  Senate.  He  has  spoken  of  every 
thing  but  the  public  lands  ;  they  have  escaped 
his  notice.  To  that  subject,  in  all  his  excur- 
sions, he  has  not  paid  even  the  cold  respect  of  a 
passing  glance. 

When  this  debate,  Sir,  was  to  be  resumed, 
on  Thursday  morning,  it  so  happened  that  it 
would  have  been  convenient  for  me  to  be  else- 
where. The  honorable  member,  however,  did 
not  incline  to  put  off  the  discussion  to  another 
day.  He  had  a  shot,  he  said,  to  return,  and  he 
wished  to  discharge  it.  That  shot,  Sir,  which 
he  thus  kindly  informed  us  was  coming,  that 
we  might  stand  out  of  the  way,  or  prepare  our- 
selves to  fall  by  it  and  die  with  decency,  has 
now  been  received.  Under  all  advantages, 
and  with  expectation  awakened  by  the  tone 
which  preceded  it,  it  has  been  discharged,  and 
has  spent  its  force.  It  may  become  me  to  say 
64 


Reply  to  Hayne 

no  more  of  its  effect,  than  that,  if  nobody  is 
found,  after  all,  either  killed  or  wounded,  it  is 
not  the  first  time,  in  the  history  of  human 
affairs,  that  the  vigor  and  success  of  the  war 
have  not  quite  come  up  to  the  lofty  and  sound- 
ing phrase  of  the  manifesto. 

The  gentleman,  Sir,  in  declining  to  postpone 
the  debate,  told  the  Senate,  with  the  emphasis 
of  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  that  there  was  some- 
thing rankling  here,  which  he  wished  to  relieve. 
[Mr.  Hayne  rose,  and  disclaimed  having  used 
the  word  rankling.}  It  would  not,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, be  safe  for  the  honorable  member  to  ap- 
peal to  those  around  him,  upon  the  question 
whether  he  did  in  fact  make  use  of  that  word. 
But  he  may  have  been  unconscious  of  it.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  enough  that  he  disclaims  it.  But 
still,  with  or  without  the  use  of  that  particular 
word,  he  had  yet  something  here,  he  said,  of 
which  he  wished  to  rid  himself  by  an  immediate 
reply.  In  this  respect,  Sir,  I  have  a  great  ad- 
vantage over  the  honorable  gentleman.  There 
is  nothing  here,  Sir,  which  gives  me  the  slight- 
est uneasiness  ;  neither  fear,  nor  anger,  nor 
that  which  is  sometimes  more  troublesome  than 
either,  the  consciousness  of  having  been  in  the 
wrong.  There  is  nothing,  either  originating 
here,  or  now  received  here  by  the  gentleman's 
shot.  Nothing  originating  here,  for  I  had  not 
the  slightest  feeling  of  unkindness  towards  the 
honorable  member.  Some  passages,  it  is  true, 
had  occurred  since  our  acquaintance  in  this 
65  • 


Daniel   Webster 

body,  which  I  could  have  wished  might  have 
been  otherwise  ;  but  1  had  used  philosophy  and 
forgotten  them.  I  paid  the  honorable  member 
the  attention  of  listening  with  respect  to  his  first 
speech  ;  and  when  he  sat  down,  though  sur- 
prised, and  I  must  even  say  astonished,  at  some 
of  his  opinions,  nothing  was  farther  from  my 
intention  than  to  commence  any  personal  war- 
fare. Through  the  whole  of  the  few  remarks 
I  made  in  answer,  I  avoided,  studiously  and 
carefully,  every  thing  which  I  thought  possible 
to  be  construed  into  disrespect.  And,  Sir, 
while  there  is  thus  nothing  originating  here 
which  I  have  wished  at  any  time,  or  now  wish, 
to  discharge,  I  must  repeat,  also,  that  nothing 
has  been  received  here  which  rankles^  or  in 
any  way  gives  me  annoyance.  I  will  not  ac- 
cuse the  honorable  member  of  violating  the 
rules  of  civilized  war  ;  I  will  not  say,  that  he 
poisoned  his  arrows.  But  whether  his  shafts 
were,  or  were  not,  dipped  in  that  which  would 
have  caused  rankling  if  they  had  reached  their 
destination,  there  was  not,  as  it  happened,  quite 
strength  enough  in  the  bow  to  bring  them  to 
their  mark.  If  he  wishes  now  to  gather  up 
those  shafts,  he  must  look  for  them  elsewhere  ; 
they  will  not  be  found  fixed  and  quivering  in 
the  object  at  which  they  were  aimed. 

The  honorable  member  complained  that  I  had 

slept  on  his  speech.     I  must  have  slept  on  it,  or 

not  slept  at  all.     The  moment  the    honorable 

member  sat  down,   his  friend  from   Missouri 

•       66 


Reply  to   Hayne 

rose,  and,  with  much  honeyed  commendation 
of  the  speech,  suggested  that  the  impressions 
which  it  had  produced  were  too  charming  and 
delightful  to  be  disturbed  by  other  sentiments 
or  other  sounds,  and  proposed  that  the  Senate 
should  adjourn.  Would  it  have  been  quite 
amiable  in  me,  Sir,  to  interrupt  this  excellent 
good  feeling  ?  Must  I  not  have  been  absolutely 
malicious,  if  I  could  have  thrust  myself  forward, 
to  destroy  sensations  thus  pleasing?  Was  it 
not  much  better  and  kinder,  both  to  sleep  upon 
them  myself,  and  to  allow  others  also  the  pleas- 
ure of  sleeping  upon  them  ?  But  if  it  be  meant, 
by  sleeping  upon  his  speech,  that  I  took  time 
to  prepare  a  reply  to  it,  it  is  quite  a  mistake. 
Owing  to  other  engagements,  I  could  not  em- 
ploy even  the  interval  between  the  adjournment 
of  the  Senate  and  its  meeting  the  next  morn- 
ing, in  attention  to  the  subject  of  this  debate. 
Nevertheless,  Sir,  the  mere  matter  of  fact  is 
undoubtedly  true.  I  did  sleep  on  the  gentle- 
man's speech,  and  slept  soundly.  And  I  slept 
equally  well  on  his  speech  of  yesterday,  to 
which  I  am  now  replying.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  in  this  respect,  also,  I  possess  some  advan- 
tage over  the  honorable  member,  attributable, 
doubtless,  to  a  cooler  temperament  on  my 
part  ;  for,  in  truth,  I  slept  upon  his  speeches 
remarkably  well. 

But  the  gentleman  inquires  why  he  was  made 
the  object  of  such  a  reply.     Why  was  he  singled 
out  ?    If  an  attack  has  been  made  on  the  East, 
67 


Daniel   Webster 

he,  he  assures  us,  did  not  begin  it  ;  it  was  made 
by  the  gentleman  from  Missouri.  Sir,  I  an- 
swered the  gentleman's  speech  because  I  hap- 
pened to  hear  it  ;  and  because,  also,  I  chose  to 
give  an  answer  to  that  speech,  which,  if  unan- 
swered, I  thought  most  likely  to  produce  injuri- 
ous impressions.  I  did  not  stop  to  inquire  who 
was  the  original  drawer  of  the  bill.  I  found  a 
responsible  indorser  before  me,  and  it  was  my 
purpose  to  hold  him  liable,  and  to  bring  him  to 
his  just  responsibility,  without  delay.  But, 
Sir,  this  interrogatory  of  the  honorable  member 
was  only  introductory  to  another.  He  pro- 
ceeded to  ask  me  whether  I  had  turned  upon 
him,  in  this  debate,  from  the  consciousness  that 
I  should  find  an  overmatch,  if  I  ventured  on  a 
contest  with  his  friend  from  Missouri.  If,  Sir, 
the  honorable  member,  modestice  gratia,  had 
chosen  thus  to  defer  to  his  friend,  and  to  pay 
him  a  compliment,  without  intentional  dispar- 
agement to  others,  it  would  have  been  quite 
according  to  the  friendly  courtesies  of  debate, 
and  not  at  all  ungrateful  to  my  own  feelings. 
I  am  not  one  of  those.  Sir,  who  esteem  any 
tribute  of  regard,  whether  light  and  occasional, 
or  more  serious  and  deliberate,  which  may  be 
bestowed  on  others,  as  so  much  unjustly  with- 
holden  from  themselves.  But  the  tone  and 
manner  of  the  gentleman's  question  forbid  me 
thus  to  interpret  it.  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  con- 
sider it  as  nothing  more  than  a  civility  to  his 
friend.  It  had  an  air  of  taunt  and  disparage- 
68 


Reply  to   Hayne 

ment,  something  of  the  loftiness  of  asserted 
superiority,  which  does  not  allow  me  to  pass  it 
over  without  notice.  It  was  put  as  a  question 
for  me  to  answer,  and  so  put  as  if  it  were  diffi- 
cult for  me  to  answer,  whether  I  deemed  the 
member  from  Missouri  an  overmatch  for  my- 
self, in  debate  here.  It  seems  to  me,  Sir,  that 
this  is  extraordinary  language,  and  an  extraor- 
dinary tone,  for  the  discussions  of  this  body. 

Matches  and  overmatches  !  Those  terms  are 
more  applicable  elsewhere  than  here,  and  fitter 
for  other  assemblies  than  this.  Sir,  the  gentle- 
man seems  to  forget  where  and  what  we  are. 
This  is  a  Senate,  a  Senate  of  equals,  of  men  of 
individual  honor  and  personal  character,  and  of 
absolute  independence.  We  know  no  masters, 
we  acknowledge  no  dictators.  This  is  a  hall 
for  mutual  consultation  and  discussion  ;  not  an 
arena  for  the  exhibition  of  champions.  I  offer 
myself.  Sir,  as  a  match  for  no  man  ;  I  throw 
the  challenge  of  debate  at  no  man's  feet.  But 
then,  Sir,  since  the  honorable  member  has  put 
the  question  in  a  manner  that  calls  for  an  an- 
swer, I  will  give  him  an  answer  ;  and  I  tell  him, 
that,  holding  myself  to  be  the  humblest  of  the 
members  here,  I  yet  know  nothing  in  the  arm 
of  his  friend  from  Missouri,  either  alone  or 
when  aided  by  the  arm  of  his  friend  from  South 
Carolina,  that  need  deter  even  me  from  espous- 
ing whatever  opinions  I  may  choose  to  espouse, 
from  debating  whenever  I  may  choose  to  de- 
bate, or  from  speaking  whatever  I  may  see  fit 
69 


Daniel  Webster 

to  say,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  Sir,  when 
uttered  as  matter  of  commendation  or  compli- 
ment, I  should  dissent  from  nothing  which  the 
honorable  member  might  say  of  his  friend. 
Still  less  do  I  put  forth  any  pretensions  of  my 
own.  But  when  put  to  me  as  matter  of  taunt, 
I  throw  it  back,  and  say  to  the  gentleman,  that 
he  could  possibly  say  nothing  less  likely  than 
such  a  comparison  to  wound  my  pride  of  per- 
sonal character.  The  anger  of  its  tone  rescued 
the  remark  from  intentional  irony,  which  other- 
wise, probably,  would  have  been  its  general  ac- 
ceptation. But,  Sir,  if  it  be  imagined  that  by 
this  mutual  quotation  and  commendation  ;  if  it 
be  supposed  that,  by  casting  the  characters  of 
the  drama,  assigning  to  each  his  part,  to  one 
the  attack,  to  another  the  cry  of  onset ;  or  if  it 
be  thought  that,  by  a  loud  and  empty  vaunt  of 
anticipated  victory,  any  laurels  are  to  be  won 
here  ;  if  it  be  imagined,  especially,  that  any, 
or  all  these  things  will  shake  any  purpose  of 
mine,  I  can  tell  the  honorable  member,  once  for 
all,  that  he  is  greatly  mistaken,  and  that  he  is 
dealing  with  one  of  whose  temper  and  character 
he  has  yet  much  to  learn.  Sir,  I  shall  not  allow 
myself,  on  this  occasion,  I  hope  on  no  occasion, 
to  be  betrayed  into  any  loss  of  temper  ;  but  if 
provoked,  as  I  trust  I  never  shall  be,  into  crim- 
ination and  recrimination,  the  honorable  mem- 
ber may  perhaps  find  that,  in  that  contest,  there 
will  be  blows  to  take  as  well  as  blows  to  give  ; 
that  others  can  state  comparisons  as  significant, 
70 


Reply  to   Hayne 

at  least,  as  his  own,  and  that  his  impunity  may 
possibly  demand  of  him  whatever  powers  of 
taunt  and  sarcasm  he  may  possess.  I  commend 
him  to  a  prudent  husbandry  of  his  resources. 

But,  Sir,  the  Coalition  !  The  Coalition  !  Ay, 
4t  the  murdered  Coalition  !"  The  gentleman 
asks,  if  I  were  led  or  frightened  into  this  debate 
by  the  spectre  of  the  Coalition.  "  Was  it  the 
ghost  of  the  murdered  Coalition,"  he  exclaims, 
"  which  haunted  the  member  from  Massachu- 
setts ;  and  which,  like  the  ghost  of  Ban  quo, 
would  never  down?"  "The  murdered  Coali- 
tion !"  Sir,  this  charge  of  a  coalition,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  late  administration,  is  not  original 
with  the  honorable  member.  It  did  not  spring 
up  in  the  Senate.  Whether  as  a  fact,  as  an 
argument,  or  as  an  embellishment,  it  is  all  bor- 
rowed. He  adopts  it,  indeed,  from  a  very  low 
origin,  and  a  still  lower  present  condition.  It 
is  one  of  the  thousand  calumnies  with  which 
the  press  teemed,  during  an  excited  political 
canvass.  It  was  a  charge,  of  which  there  was 
not  only  no  proof  or  probability,  but  which  was 
in  itself  wholly  impossible  to  be  true.  No  man 
of  common  information  ever  believed  a  syllable 
of  it.  Yet  it  was  of  that  class  of  falsehoods, 
-which,  by  continued  repetition,  through  all  the 
organs  of  detraction  and  abuse,  are  capable  of 
misleading  those  who  are  already  far  misled, 
and  of  further  fanning  passion  already  kindling 
into  flame.  Doubtless  it  served  in  its  day,  and 
in  greater  or  less  degree,  the  end  designed  by 


Daniel   Webster 

it.  Having  done  that,  it  has  sunk  into  the  gen- 
eral mass  of  stale  and  loathed  calumnies.  It  is 
the  very  cast-off  slough  of  a  polluted  and  shame- 
less press.  Incapable  of  further  mischief,  it 
lies  in  the  sewer,  lifeless  and  despised.  It  is 
not  now,  Sir,  in  the  power  of  the  honorable 
member  to  give  it  dignity  or  decency,  by  at- 
tempting to  elevate  it,  and  to  introduce  it  into 
the  Senate.  He  cannot  change  it  from  what  it 
is,  an  object  of  general  disgust  and  scorn.  On 
the  contrary,  the  contact,  if  he  choose  to  touch 
it,  is  more  likely  to  drag  him  down,  down,  to 
the  place  where  it  lies  itself. 

But,  Sir,  the  honorable  member  was  not,  for 
other  reasons,  entirely  happy  in  his  allusion  to 
the  story  of  Banquo's  murder  and  Banquo's 
ghost.  It  was  not,  I  think,  the  friends,  but  the 
enemies  of  the  murdered  Banquo,  at  whose  bid- 
ding his  spirit  would  not  down.  The  honorable 
gentleman  is  fresh  in  his  reading  of  the  Eng- 
lish classics,  and  can  put  me  right  if  I  am 
wrong  ;  but,  according  to  my  poor  recollection, 
it  was  at  those  who  had  begun  with  caresses 
and  ended  with  foul  and  treacherous  murder 
that  the  gory  locks  were  shaken.  The  ghost  of 
Banquo,  like  that  of  Hamlet,  was  an  honest 
ghost.  It  disturbed  no  innocent  man.  It  knew 
where  its  appearance  would  strike  terror,  and 
who  would  cry  out,  A  ghost !  It  made  itself 
visible  in  the  right  quarter,  and  compelled  the 
guiHy  and  the  conscience-smitten,  and  none 
others,  to  start,  with, 

72 


Reply  to   Hayne 

"  Pr'ythee,  see  there  !  behold  !— look !  lo 
If  I  stand  here,  I  saw  him  !  " 

Their  eyeballs  were  seared  (was  it  not  so,  Sir  ?) 
who  had  thought  to  shield  themselves  by  con- 
cealing their  own  hand,  and  laying  the  imputa- 
tion of  the  crime  on  a  low  and  hireling  agency 
in  wickedness  ;  who  had  vainly  attempted  to 
stifle  the  workings  of  their  own  coward  con- 
sciences by  ejaculating  through  white  lips  and 
chattering  teeth,  "  Thou  canst  not  say  1  did  it  !" 
I  have  misread  the  great  poet  if  those  who  had 
no  way  partaken  in  the  deed  of  the  death,  either 
found  that  they  were,  or  feared  that  they 
should  be,  pushed  from  their  stools  by  the  ghost 
of  the  slain,  or  exclaimed  to  a  spectre  created 
by  their  own  fears  and  their  own  remorse, 
"  Avaunt  !  and  quit  our  sight  !" 

There  is  another  particular,  Sir,  in  which  the 
honorable  member's  quick  perception  of  resem- 
blances might,  I  should  think,  have  seen  some- 
thing in  the  story  of  Banquo,  making  it  not 
altogether  a  subject  of  the  most  pleasant  con- 
templation. Those  who  murdered  Banquo, 
what  did  they  win  by  it  ?  Substantial  good  ? 
Permanent  power  ?  Or  disappointment,  rather, 
and  sore  mortification  ;  dust  and  ashes,  the 
common  fate  of  vaulting  ambition  overleaping 
itself  ?  Did  not  even-handed  justice  ere  long 
commend  the  poisoned  chalice  to  their  own 
lips  ?  Did  they  not  soon  find  that  for  another 
they  had  "  filed  their  mind"  ?  that  their  am- 
bition, though  apparently  for  the  moment  suc- 
73 


Daniel   Webster 

cessful,  had  but  put  a  barren  sceptre  in  their 
grasp  ?    Ay,  Sir, 

"  a  barren  sceptre  in  their  gripe, 
Thence  to  be  wrenched  with  an  unlineal  hand, 
No  son  of  theirs  succeeding." 

Sir,  I  need  pursue  the  allusion  no  farther.  I 
leave  the  honorable  gentleman  to  run  it  out  at 
his  leisure,  and  to  derive  from  it  all  the  gratifi- 
cation it  is  calculated  to  administer.  If  he  finds 
himself  pleased  with  the  associations,  and  pre- 
pared to  be  quite  satisfied,  though  the  parallel 
should  be  entirely  completed,  I  had  almost  said, 
I  am  satisfied  also  ;  but  that  I  shall  think  of. 
Yes,  Sir,  I  will  think  of  that 

In  the  course  of  my  observations  the  other 
day,  Mr.  President,  I  paid  a  passing  tribute  of 
respect  to  a  very  worthy  man,  Mr.  Dane  of 
Massachusetts.  It  so  happened  that  he  drew 
the  Ordinance  of  1787,  for  the  government  of 
the  Northwestern  Territory.  A  man  of  so  much 
ability,  and  so  little  pretence  ;  of  so  great  a 
capacity  to  do  good,  and  so  unmixed  a  disposi- 
tion to  do  it  for  its  own  sake  ;  a  gentleman  who 
had  acted  an  important  part,  forty  years  ago, 
in  a  measure  the  influence  of  which  is  still 
deeply  felt  in  the  very  matter  which  was  the 
subject  of  debate,  might,  I  thought,  receive 
from  me  a  commendatory  recognition.  But 
the  honorable  member  was  inclined  to  be  face- 
tious on  the  subject.  He  was  rather  disposed 
to  make  it  matter  of  ridicule,  that  I  had  intro- 
duced into  the  debate  the  name  of  one  Nathan 
74 


Reply  to  Hayne 


Dane,  of  whom  he  assures  us  he  had  never  be- 
fore heard.  Sir,  if  the  honorable  member  had 
never  before  heard  of  Mr.  Dane,  I  am  sorry 
for  it.  It  shows  him  less  acquainted  with  the 
public  men  of  the  country  than  I  had  supposed. 
Let  me  tell  him,  however,  that  a  sneer  from 
him  at  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Mr.  Dane  is 
in  bad  taste.  It  may  well  be  a  high  mark  of 
ambition,  Sir,  either  with  the  honorable  gentle- 
man or  myself,  to  accomplish  as  much  to  make 
our  names  known  to  advantage,  and  remem- 
bered with  gratitude,  as  Mr.  Dane  has  accom- 
plished. But  the  truth  is,  Sir,  I  suspect,  that 
Mr.  Dane  lives  a  little  too  far  north.  He  is  of 
Massachusetts,  and  too  near  the  north  star  to 
be  reached  by  the  honorable  gentleman's  tele- 
scope. If  his  sphere  had  happened  to  range 
south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  he  might, 
probably,  have  come  within  the  scope  of  his 
vision. 

I  spoke,  Sir,  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which 
prohibits  slavery,  in  all  future  times,  northwest 
of  the  Ohio,  as  a  measure  of  great  wisdom  and 
foresight,  and  one  which  had  been  attended 
with  highly  beneficial  and  permanent  conse- 
quences. I  supposed  that,  on  this  point,  no 
two  gentlemen  in  the  Senate  could  entertain 
different  opinions.  But  the  simple  expression 
of  this  sentiment  has  led  the  gentleman,  not 
only  into  a  labored  defence  of  slavery,  in  the 
abstract,  and  on  principle,  but  also  into  a  warm 
accusation  against  me,  as  having  attacked  the 
75 


Daniel   Webster 

system  of  domestic  slavery  now  existing  in  the 
Southern  States.  For  all  this,  there  was  not 
the  slightest  foundation,  in  any  thing  said  or 
intimated  by  me.  I  did  not  utter  a  single  word 
which  any  ingenuity  could  torture  into  an  at- 
tack on  the  slavery  of  the  South.  I  said,  only, 
that  it  was  highly  wise  and  useful,  in  legislating 
for  the  Northwestern  country  while  it  was  yet 
a  wilderness,  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of 
slaves  ;  and  I  added,  that  I  presumed  there 
was  no  reflecting  and  intelligent  person,  in  the 
neighboring  State  of  Kentucky,  who  would 
doubt  that,  if  the  same  prohibition  had  been 
extended,  at  the  same  early  period,  over  that 
commonwealth,  her  strength  and  population 
would,  at  this  day,  have  been  far  greater  than 
they  are.  If  these  opinions  be  thought  doubt- 
ful, they  are  nevertheless,  I  trust,  neither  ex- 
traordinary nor  disrespectful.  They  attack  no- 
body and  menace  nobody.  And  yet,  Sir,  the 
gentleman's  optics  have  discovered,  even  in 
the  mere  expression  of  this  sentiment,  what  he 
calls  the  very  spirit  of  the  Missouri  question  ! 
He  represents  me  as  making  an  onset  on  the 
whole  South,  and  manifesting  a  spirit  which 
would  interfere  with,  and  disturb,  their  domes- 
tic condition  ! 

Sir,  this  injustice  no  otherwise  surprises  me, 
than  as  it  is  committed  here,  and  committed 
without  the  slightest  pretence  of  ground  for  it. 
I  say  it  only  surprises  me  as  being  done  here  ; 
for  I  know  full  well,  that  it  is,  and  has  been, 
76 


Reply  to  Hayne 

the  settled  policy  of  some  persons  in  the  South, 
for  years,  to  represent  the  people  of  the  North 
as  disposed  to  interfere  with  them  in  their  own 
exclusive  and  peculiar  concerns.  This  is  a  deli- 
cate and  sensitive  point  in  Southern  feeling  ; 
and  of  late  years  it  has  always  been  touched, 
and  generally  with  effect,  whenever  the  object 
has  been  to  unite  the  whole  South  against 
Northern  men  or  Northern  measures.  This, 
feeling,  always  carefully  kept  alive,  and  main- 
tained at  too  intense  a  heat  to  admit  discrimina- 
tion or  reflection,  is  a  lever  of  great  power  in 
our  political  machine.  It  moves  vast  bodiesr 
and  gives  to  them  one  and  the  same  direction. 
But  it  is  without  adequate  cause,  and  the  sus- 
picion which  exists  is  wholly  groundless.  There 
is  not,  and  never  has  been,  a  disposition  in  the 
North  to  interfere  with  these  interests  of  the 
South.  Such  interference  has  never  been  sup- 
posed to  be  within  the  power  of  government  ; 
nor  has  it  been  in  any  way  attempted.  The 
slavery  of  the  South  has  always  been  regarded 
as  a  matter  of  domestic  policy,  left  with  the 
States  themselves,  and  with  which  the  federal 
government  had  nothing  to  do.  Certainly,  Sir, 
I  am,  and  ever  have  been,  of  that  opinion. 
The  gentleman,  indeed,  argues  that  slavery,  in 
the  abstract,  is  no  evil.  Most  assuredly  I  need 
not  say  I  differ  with  him,  altogether  and  most 
widely,  on  that  point.  I  regard  domestic 
slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest  evils,  both  moral 
and  political.  But  whether  it  be  a  malady,  and 
77 


Daniel   Webster 

whether  it  be  curable,  and  if  so,  by  what  means  ; 
or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  it  be  the  vulnus 
immcdicabile  of  the  social  system,  I  leave  it  to 
those  whose  right  and  duty  it  is  to  inquire  and 
to  decide.  And  this  I  believe,  Sir,  is,  and  uni- 
formly has  been,  the  sentiment  of  the  North. 
Let  us  look  a  little  at  the  history  of  this  matter. 

When  the  present  Constitution  was  submitted 
for  the  ratification  of  the  people,  there  were 
those  who  imagined  that  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment which  it  proposed  to  establish  might, 
in  some  possible  mode,  be  exerted  in  measures 
tending  to  the  abolition  of  slavery.  This  sug- 
gestion would  of  course  attract  much  attention 
in  the  Southern  conventions.  In  that  of  Vir- 
ginia, Governor  Randolph  said  : — 

"  I  hope  there  is  none  here,  who,  considering 
the  subject  in  the  calm  light  of  philosophy,  will 
make  an  objection  dishonorable  to  Virginia  ; 
that,  at  the  moment  they  are  securing  the  rights 
of  their  citizens,  an  objection  is  started,  that 
there  is  a  spark  of  hope  that  those  unfortunate 
men  now  held  in  bondage  may,  by  the  opera- 
tion of  the  general  government,  be  made  free." 
At  the  very  first  Congress,  petitions  on  the 
subject  were  presented,  if  I  mistake  not,  from 
different  States.  The  Pennsylvania  society  for 
promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery  took  a  lead, 
and  laid  before  Congress  a  memorial,  praying 
Congress  to  promote  the  abolition  by  such  pow- 
ers as  it  possessed.  This  memorial  was  re- 
ferred, in  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  a 


Reply  to   Hayne 

select  committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Foster  of 
New  Hampshire,  Mr.  Gerry  of  Massachusetts, 
Mr.  Huntington  of  Connecticut,  Mr.  Lawrence 
of  New  York,  Mr.  Sinnickson  of  New  Jersey ,. 
Mr.  Hartley  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Mr.  Parker 
of  Virginia  ;  all  of  them,  Sir,  as  you  will  ob- 
serve, Northern  men  but  the  last.  This  com- 
mittee made  a  report,  which  was  referred  to  a 
committee  of  the  whole  House,  and  there  con- 
sidered and  discussed  for  several  days  ;  and 
being  amended,  although  without  material  alter- 
ation, it  was  made  to  express  three  distinct 
propositions,  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  the 
slave-trade.  First,  in  the  words  of  the  Consti- 
tution, that  Congress  could  not,  prior  to  the 
year  1808,  prohibit  the  migration  or  importation 
of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  then  exist- 
ing should  think  proper  to  admit ;  and  secondly, 
that  Congress  had  authority  to  restrain  the  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  from  carrying  on  the 
African  slave  trade,  for  the  purpose  of  supply- 
ing foreign  countries.  On  this  proposition,  our 
early  laws  against  those  who  engage  in  that 
traffic  are  founded.  The  third  proposition,  and 
that  which  bears  on  the  present  question,  was 
expressed  in  the  following  terms  : — 

"  Resolved,  That  Congress  have  no  authority 
to  interfere  in  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  or  in 
the  treatment  of  them  in  any  of  the  States  ;  it 
remaining  with  the  several  States  alone  to  pro- 
vide rules  and  regulations  therein  which  hu- 
manity and  true  policy  may  require." 
79 


Daniel   Webster 

This  resolution  received  the  sanction  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  so  early  as  March, 
1790.  And  now,  Sir,  the  honorable  member 
will  allow  me  to  remind  him,  that  not  only  were 
the  select  committee  who  reported  the  resolu- 
tion, with  a  single  exception,  all  Northern  men, 
but  also  that,  of  the  members  then  composing 
the  House  of  Representatives,  a  large  majority, 
I  believe  nearly  two  thirds,  were  Northern  men 
also. 

The  House  agreed  to  insert  these  resolutions 
in  its  journal,  and  from  that  day  to  this  it  has 
never  been  maintained  or  contended  at  the 
North,  that  Congress  had  any  authority  to  regu- 
late or  interfere  with  the  condition  of  slaves  in 
the  several  States.  No  Northern  gentleman, 
to  my  knowledge,  has  moved  any  such  question 
in  either  House  of  Congress. 

The  fears  of  the  South,  whatever  fears  they 
might  have  entertained,  were  allayed  and 
quieted  by  this  early  decision  ;  and  so  remained 
till  they  were  excited  afresh,  without  cause,  but 
for  collateral  and  indirect  purposes.  When  it 
became  necessary,  or  was  thought  so,  by  some 
political  persons,  to  find  an  unvarying  ground 
for  the  exclusion  of  Northern  men  from  confi- 
dence and  from  lead  in  the  affairs  of  the  repub- 
lic, then,  and  not  till  then,  the  cry  was  raised, 
and  the  feeling  industriously  excited,  that  the 
influence  of  Northern  men  in  the  public  coun- 
sels would  endanger  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave.  For  myself,  I  claim  no  other  merit  than 
So 


Reply  to   Hayne 

that  this  gross  and  enormous  injustice  towards 
the  whole  North  has  not  wrought  upon  me  to 
change  my  opinions  or  my  political  conduct.  I 
hope  I  am  above  violating  my  principles,  even 
under  the  smart  of  injury  and  false  imputa- 
tions. Unjust  suspicions  and  undeserved  re- 
proach, whatever  pain  I  may  experience  from 
them,  will  not  induce  me,  I  trust,  to  overstep 
the  limits  of  constitutional  duty,  or  to  encroach 
on  the  rights  of  others.  The  domestic  slavery 
of  the  Southern  States  I  leave  where  I  find  it, 
— in  the  hands  of  their  own  governments.  It 
is  their  affair,  not  mine.  Nor  do  I  complain  of 
the  peculiar  effect  which  the  magnitude  of  that 
population  has  had  in  the  distribution  of  power 
under  this  federal  government.  We  know,  Sir, 
that  the  representation  of  the  States  in  the 
other  house  is  not  equal.  We  know  that  great 
advantage  in  that  respect  is  enjoyed  by  the 
slave-holding  States  ;  and  we  know,  too,  that 
the  intended  equivalent  for  that  advantage, 
that  is  to  say,  the  imposition  of  direct  taxes  in 
the  same  ratio,  has  become  merely  nominal, 
.the  habit  of  the  government  being  almost  in- 
variably to  collect  its  revenue  from  other  sources 
and  in  other  modes.  Nevertheless,  I  do  not 
complain  ;  nor  would  I  countenance  any  move- 
ment to  alter  this  arrangement  of  representa- 
tion. It  is  the  original  bargain,  the  compact ; 
let  it  stand  ;  let  the  advantage  of  it  be  fully  en- 
joyed. The  Union  itself  is  too  full  of  benefit  to 
be  hazarded  in  propositions  for  changing  its 
Si 


Daniel   Webster 

original  basis.  I  go  for  the  Constitution  as  it 
is,  and  for  the  Union  as  it  is.  But  I  am  re- 
solved not  to  submit  in  silence  to  accusations, 
either  against  myself  individually  or  against 
the  North,  wholly  unfounded  and  unjust  ;  ac- 
cusations which  impute  to  us  a  disposition  to 
evade  the  constitutional  compact,  and  to  extend 
the  power  of  the  government  over  the  internal 
laws  and  domestic  condition  of  the  States.  All 
such  accusations,  wherever  and  whenever  made, 
all  insinuations  of  the  existence  of  any  such 
purposes,  I  know  and  feel  to  be  groundless  and 
injurious.  And  we  must  confide  in  Southern 
gentlemen  themselves  ;  we  must  trust  to  those 
whose  integrity  of  heart  and  magnanimity  of 
feeling  will  lead  them  to  a  desire  to  maintain 
and  disseminate  truth,  and  who  possess  the 
means  of  its  diffusion  with  the  Southern  pub- 
lic ;  we  must  leave  it  to  them  to  disabuse  that 
public  of  its  prejudices.  But  in  the  mean  time, 
for  my  own  part,  I  shall  continue  to  act  justly, 
whether  those  towards  whom  justice  is  exer- 
cised receive  it  with  candor  or  with  contumely. 
Having  had  occasion  to  recur  to  the  Ordi- 
nance of  1787,  in  order  to  defend  myself  against 
the  inferences  which  the  honorable  member  has 
chosen  to  draw  from  my  former  observations 
on  that  subject,  I  am  not  willing  now  entirely 
to  take  leave  of  it  without  another  remark.  It 
need  hardly  be  said,  that  that  paper  expresses 
just  sentiments  on  the  great  subject  of  civil 
and  religious  liberty.  Such  sentiments  were 
82 


Reply  to  Hayne 


common,  and  abound  in  all  our  state  papers  of 
that  day.  But  this  Ordinance  did  that  which 
was  not  so  common,  and  which  is  not  even  now 
universal  ;  that  is,  it  set  forth  and  declared  it 
to  be  a  high  and  binding  duty  of  government 
itself  to  support  schools  and  advance  the  means 
of  education,  on  the  plain  reason  that  religion, 
morality,  and  knowledge  are  necessary  to  good 
government,  and  to  the  happiness  of  mankind. 
One  observation  further.  The  important  pro- 
vision incorporated  into  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  into  several  of  those  of  the 
States,  and  recently,  as  we  have  seen,  adopted 
into  the  reformed  constitution  of  Virginia,  re- 
straining legislative  power  in  questions  of  pri- 
vate right,  and  from  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts,  is  first  introduced  and  established, 
as  far  as  I  am  informed,  as  matter  of  express 
written  constitutional  law,  in  this  Ordinance  of 
1787.  And  I  must  add,  also,  in  regard  to  the 
author  of  the  Ordinance,  who  has  not  had  the 
happiness  to  attract  the  gentleman's  notice 
heretofore,  nor  to  avoid  his  sarcasm  now,  that 
he  was  chairman  of  that  select  committee  of  the 
old  Congress,  whose  report  first  expressed  the 
strong  sense  of  that  body,  that  the  old  Confed- 
eration was  not  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of 
the  country,  and  recommended  to  the  States  to 
send  delegates  to  the  convention  which  formed 
the  present  Constitution. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  transfer  from 
the  North  to  the  South  the  honor  of  this  exclu- 
83 


Daniel   Webster 

sion  of  slavery  from  the  Northwestern  Terri- 
tory, The  journal,  without  argument  or  com- 
ment, refutes  such  attempts.  The  cession  by 
Virginia  was  made  in  March,  1784.  On  the 
igth  of  April  following,  a  committee,  consisting 
of  Messrs.  Jefferson,  Chase,  and  Howell,  re- 
ported a  plan  for  a  temporary  government  of  the 
territory,  in  which  was  this  article  :  "  That, 
after  the  year  1800,  there  shall  be  neither  slavery 
nor  involuntary  servitude  in  any  of  the  said 
States,  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of  crimes, 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  convicted." 
Mr.  Spaight  of  North  Carolina  moved  to  strike 
out  this  paragraph.  The  question  was  put,  ac- 
cording to  the  form  then  practised,  ' '  Shall 
these  words  stand  as  a  part  of  the  plan  ?"  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Con- 
necticut, New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsyl- 
vania, seven  States,  voted  in  the  affirmative  ; 
Maryland,  Virginia,  and  South  Carolina,  in  the 
negative.  North  Carolina  was  divided.  As  the 
consent  of  nine  States  was  necessary,  the  words 
could  not  stand,  and  were  struck  out  accord- 
ingly. Mr.  Jefferson  voted  for  the  clause,  but 
was  overruled  by  his  colleagues. 

In  March  of  the  next  year  (1785),  Mr.  King  of 
Massachusetts,  seconded  by  Mr.  Ellery  of 
Rhode  Island,  proposed  the  formerly  rejected 
article,  with  this  addition  :  "  And  that  this 
regulation  shall  be  an  article  of  compact,  and 
remain  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  constitu- 
tions between  the  thirteen  original  States,  and 


Reply  to   Hayne 

each  of  the  States  described  in  the  resolve." 
On  this  clause,  which  provided  the  adequate 
and  thorough  security,  the  eight  Northern 
States  at  that  time  voted  affirmatively,  and  the 
four  Southern  States  negatively.  The  votes  of 
nine  States  were  not  yet  obtained,  and  thus  the 
provision  was  again  rejected  by  the  Southern 
States.  The  perseverance  of  the  North  held 
out,  and  two  years  afterwards  the  object  was 
attained.  It  is  no  derogation  from  the  credit, 
whatever  that  may  be,  of  drawing  the  Ordi- 
nance, that  its  principles  had  before  been  pre- 
pared and  discussed,  in  the  form  of  resolutions. 
If  one  should  reason  in  that  way,  what  would 
become  of  the  distinguished  honor  of  the  author 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ?  There  is 
not  a  sentiment  in  that  paper  which  had  not 
been  voted  and  resolved  in  the  assemblies,  and 
other  popular  bodies  in  the  country,  over  and 
over  again. 

But  the  honorable  member  has  now  found 
out  that  this  gentleman,  Mr.  Dane,  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Hartford  Convention.  However  un- 
informed the  honorable  member  may  be  of 
characters  and  occurrences  at  the  North,  it 
would  seem  that  he  has  at  his  elbow,  on  this 
occasion,  some  high-minded  and  lofty  spirit, 
some  magnanimous  and  true-hearted  monitor, 
possessing  the  means  of  local  knowledge,  and 
ready  to  supply  the  honorable  member  with 
every  thing,  down  even  to  forgotten  and  moth- 
eaten  two  penny  pamphlets;  which  may  be  used 
85 


Daniel   Webster 

to  the  disadvantage  of  his  own  country.  But 
as  to  the  Hartford  Convention,  Sir,  allow  me 
to  say,  that  the  proceedings  of  that  body  seem 
now  to  be  less  read  and  studied  in  New  Eng- 
land than  farther  South.  They  appear  to  be 
looked  to,  not  in  New  England,  but  elsewhere, 
for  the  purpose  of  seeing  how  far  they  may 
serve  as  a  precedent.  But  they  will  not  answer 
the  purpose,  they  are  quite  too  tame.  The  lati- 
tude in  which  they  originated  was  too  cold. 
Other  conventions,  of  more  recent  existence, 
have  gone  a  whole  bar's  length  beyond  it.  The 
learned  doctors  of  Colleton  and  Abbeville  have 
pushed  their  commentaries  on  the  Hartford  col- 
lect so  far,  that  the  original  text-writers  are 
thrown  entirely  into  the  shade.  I  have  nothing 
to  do,  Sir,  with  the  Hartford  Convention.  Its 
journal,  which  the  gentleman  has  quoted,  I 
never  read.  So  far  as  the  honorable  member 
may  discover  in  its  proceedings  a  spirit  in  any 
degree  resembling  that  which  was  avowed  and 
justified  in  those  other  conventions  to  which  I 
have  alluded,  or  so  far  as  those  proceedings  can 
be  shown  to  be  disloyal  to  the  Constitution,  or 
tending  to  disunion,  so  far  I  shall  be  as  ready 
as  any  one  to  bestow  on  them  reprehension  and 
censure. 

Having  dwelt  long  on  this  convention,  and 
other  occurrences  of  that  day,  in  the  hope,  prob- 
ably, (which  will  not  be  gratified,)  that  I  should 
leave  the  course  of  this  debate  to  follow  him  at 
length  in  those  excursions,  the  honorable  mem- 
86 


Reply  to  Hayne 

ber  returned,  and  attempted  another  object. 
He  referred  to  a  speech  of  mine  in  the  other 
house,  the  same  which  I  had  occasion  to  allude 
to  myself,  the  other  day  ;  and  has  quoted  a  pas- 
sage or  two  from  it,  with  a  bold,  though  uneasy 
and  laboring,  air  of  confidence,  as  if  he  had  de- 
tected in  me  an  inconsistency.  Judging  from 
the  gentleman's  manner,  a  stranger  to  the 
course  of  the  debate  and  to  the  point  in  discus- 
sion would  have  imagined,  from  so  triumphant 
a  tone,  that  the  honorable  member  was  about 
to  overwhelm  me  with  a  manifest  contradiction. 
Any  one  who  heard  him,  and  who  had  not 
heard  what  I  had,  in  fact,  previously  said,  must 
have  thought  me  routed  and  discomfited,  as  the 
gentleman  had  promised.  Sir,  a  breath  blows 
all  this  triumph  away.  There  is  not  the  slight- 
est difference  in  the  purport  of  my  remarks  on 
the  two  occasions.  What  I  said  here  on  Wed- 
nesday is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  opinion 
expressed  by  me  in  the  other  house  in  1825. 
Though  the  gentleman  had  the  metaphysics  of 
Hudibras,  though  he  were  able 

"  to  sever  and  divide 
A  hair  'twixt  north  and  northwest  side," 

he  yet  could  not  insert  his  metaphysical  scissors 
between  the  fair  reading  of  my  remarks  in  1825, 
and  what  I  said  here  last  week.  There  is  not 
only  no  contradiction,  no  difference,  but,  in 
truth,  too  exact  a  similarity,  both  in  thought 
and  language,  to  be  entirely  in  just  taste.  I 
87 


Daniel   Webster 

had  myself  quoted  the  same  speech  ;  had  re- 
curred to  it,  and  spoke  with  it  open  before  me  ; 
and  much  of  what  I  said  was  little  more  than  a 
repetition  from  it.  In  order  to  make  finishing 
work  with  this  alleged  contradiction,  permit 
me  to  recur  to  the  origin  of  this  debate,  and  re- 
view its  course.  This  seems  expedient,  and 
may  be  done  as  well  now  as  at  any  time. 

Well,  then,  its  history  is  this.  The  honorable 
member  from  Connecticut  moved  a  resolution, 
which  constitutes  the  first  branch  of  that  which 
is  now  before  us  ;  that  is  to  say,  a  resolution, 
instructing  the  committee  on  public  lands  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  limiting,  for  a  cer- 
tain period,  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  to  such 
as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for  sale  ;  and 
whether  sundry  offices  connected  with  the  sales 
of  the  lands  might  not  be  abolished  without  det- 
riment to  the  public  service.  In  the  progress 
of  the  discussion  which  arose  on  this  resolution, 
an  honorable  member  from  New  Hampshire 
moved  to  amend  the  resolution,  so  as  entirely 
to  reverse  its  object  ;  that  is,  to  strike  it  all  out, 
and  insert  a  direction  to  the  committee  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  adopting  measures 
to  hasten  the  sales,  and  extend  more  rapidly  the 
surveys,  of  the  lands. 

The  honorable  member  from  Maine  suggested 
that  both  those  propositions  might  well  enough 
go  for  consideration  to  the  committee  ;  and  in 
this  state  of  the  question,  the  member  from 
South  Carolina  addressed  the  Senate  in  his  first 


Reply  to   Hayne 

speech.  He  rose,  lie  said,  to  give  us  his  own 
free  thoughts  on  the  public  lands.  I  saw  him 
rise  with  pleasure,  and  listened  with  expecta- 
tion, though  before  he  concluded  I  was  filled 
with  surprise.  Certainly,  I  was  never  more 
surprised,  than  to  find  him  following  up,  to  the 
extent  he  did,  the  sentiments  and  opinions  which 
the  gentleman  from  Missouri  had  put  forth, 
and  which  it  is  known  he  has  long  entertained. 
I  need  not  repeat  at  large  the  general  topics 
of  the  honorable  gentleman's  speech.  When 
he  said  yesterday  that  he  did  not  attack  the 
Eastern  States,  he  certainly  must  have  forgot- 
ten, not  only  particular  remarks,  but  the  whole 
drift  and  tenor  of  his  speech  ;  unless  he  means 
by  not  attacking,  that  he  did  not  commence 
hostilities,  but  that  another  had  preceded  him 
in  the  attack.  He,  in  the  first  place,  disap- 
proved of  the  whole  course  of  the  government, 
for  forty  years,  in  regard  to  its  disposition  of 
the  public  lands  ;  and  then,  turning  northward 
and  eastward,  and  fancying  he  had  found  a 
cause  for  alleged  narrowness  and  niggardliness 
in  the  "  accursed  policy"  of  the  tariff,  to  which 
he  represented  the  people  of  New  England  as 
wedded,  he  went  on  for  a  full  hour  with  re- 
marks, the  whole  scope  of  which  was  to  exhibit 
the  results  of  this  policy,  in  feelings  and  in 
measures  unfavorable  to  the  West.  I  thought 
his  opinions  unfounded  and  erroneous,  as  to  the 
general  course  of  the  government,  and  ventured 
to  reply  to  them. 


Daniel   Webster 

The  gentleman  had  remarked  on  the  analogy 
of  other  cases,  and  quoted  the  conduct  of  Euro- 
pean governments  towards  their  own  subjects 
settling  on  this  continent,  as  in  point,  to  show 
that  we  had  been  harsh  and  rigid  in  selling, 
when  we  should  have  given  the  public  lands  to 
settlers  without  price.  I  thought  the  honorable 
member  had  suffered  his  judgment  to  be  be- 
trayed by  a  false  analogy  ;  that  he  was  struck 
with  an  appearance  of  resemblance  where  there 
was  no  real  similitude.  I  think  so  still.  The 
first  settlers  of  North  America  were  enterpris- 
ing spirits,  engaged  in  private  adventure,  or 
fleeing  from  tyranny  at  home.  When  arrived 
here,  they  were  forgotten  by  the  mother  coun- 
try, or  remembered  only  to  be  oppressed.  Car- 
ried away  again  by  the  appearance  of  analogy, 
or  struck  with  the  eloquence  of  the  passage,  the 
honorable  member  yesterday  observed,  that  the 
conduct  of  government  towards  the  Western 
emigrants,  or  my  representation  of  it,  brought 
to  his  mind  a  celebrated  speech  in  the  British 
Parliament.  It  was.  Sir,  the  speech  of  Colonel 
Barre.  On  the  question  of  the  stamp  act,  or 
tea  tax,  I  forget  which.  Colonel  Barre  had  heard 
a  member  on  the  treasury  bench  argue,  that 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  being  British 
colonists,  planted  by  the  maternal  care,  nour- 
ished by  the  indulgence,  and  protected  by  the 
arms  of  England,  would  not  grudge  their  mite 
to  relieve  the  mother  country  from  the  heavy 
burden  under  which  she  groaned.  The  Ian- 
90 


Reply  to  Hayne 

guage  of  Colonel  Barre,  in  reply  to  this,  was, — 
' '  They  planted  by  your  care  ?  Your  oppression 
planted  them  in  America.  They  fled  from  your 
tyranny,  and  grew  by  your  neglect  of  them. 
So  soon  as  you  began  to  care  for  them,  you 
showed  your  care  by  sending  persons  to  spy 
out  their  liberties,  misrepresent  their  character, 
prey  upon  them,  and  eat  out  their  substance." 

And  how  does  the  honorable  gentleman  mean 
to  maintain,  that  language  like  this  is  applica- 
ble to  the  conduct  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  towards  the  Western  emigrants, 
or  to  any  representation  given  by  me  of  that 
conduct  ?  Were  the  settlers  in  the  West  driven 
thither  by  our  oppression  ?  Have  they  flour- 
ished only  by  our  neglect  of  them?  Has  the 
government  done  nothing  but  prey  upon  them, 
and  eat  out  their  substance?  Sir,  this  fervid 
eloquence  of  the  British  speaker,  just  when  and 
where  it  was  uttered,  and  fit  to  remain  an  exer- 
cise for  the  schools,  is  not  a  little  out  of  place, 
when  it  is  brought  thence  to  be  applied  here,  to 
the  conduct  of  our  own  country  towards  her 
own  citizens.  From  America  to  England,  it 
may  be  true;  from  Americans  to  their  own 
government,  it  would  be  strange  language. 
Let  us  leave  it,  to  be  recited  and  declaimed  by 
our  boys  against  a  foreign  nation  ;  not  intro- 
duce it  here,  to  recite  and  declaim  ourselves 
against  our  own. 

But  I  come  to  the  point  of  the  alleged  con- 
tradiction. In  my  remarks  on  Wednesday,  I 


Daniel   Webster 

contended  that  we  could  not  give  away  gratui- 
tously all  the  public  lands  ;  that  we  held  them 
in  trust ;  that  the  government  had  solemnly 
pledged  itself  to  dispose  of  them  as  a  common 
fund  for  the  common  benefit,  and  to  sell  and 
settle  them  as  its  discretion  should  dictate. 
Now,  Sir,  what  contradiction  does  the  gentle- 
man find  to  this  sentiment  in  the  speech  of 
1825  ?  He  quotes  me  as  having  then  said,  that 
we  ought  not  to  hug  these  lands  as  a  very  great 
treasure.  Very  well,  Sir,  supposing  me  to  be 
accurately  reported  in  that  expression,  what  is 
the  contradiction  ?  I  have  not  now  said,  that 
we  should  hug  these  lands  as  a  favorite  source 
of  pecuniary  income.  No  such  thing.  It  is  not 
my  view.  What  I  have  said,  and  what  1  do 
say,  is,  that  they  are  a  common  fund,  to  be  dis- 
posed of  for  the  common  benefit,  to  be  sold  at 
low  prices  for  the  accommodation  of  settlers, 
keeping  the  object  of  settling  the  lands  as  much 
in  view  as  that  of  raising  money  from  them. 
This  I  say  now,  and  this  I  have  always  said. 
Is  this  hugging  them  as  a  favorite  treasure  ?  Is 
there  no  difference  between  hugging  and  hoard- 
ing this  fund,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  great 
treasure,  and,  on  the  other,  of  disposing  of  it  at 
low  prices,  placing  the  proceeds  in  the  general 
treasury  of  the  Union  ?  My  opinion  is,  that  as 
much  is  to  be  made  of  the  land  as  fairly  and 
reasonably  may  be,  selling  it  all  the  while  at 
such  rates  as  to  give  the  fullest  effect  to  settle- 
ment. This  is  not  giving  it  all  away  to  the 
92 


Reply  to   Hayne 


States,  as  the  gentleman  would  propose  ;  nor 
is  it  hugging  the  fund  closely  and  tenaciously, 
as  a  favorite  treasure  ;  but  it  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, a  just  and  wise  policy,  perfectly  accord- 
ing with  all  the  various  duties  which  rest  on 
government.  So  much  for  my  contradiction. 
And  what  is  it  ?  Where  is  the  ground  of  the 
gentleman's  triumph  ?  What  inconsistency  in 
word  or  doctrine  has  he  been  able  to  detect? 
Sir,  if  this  be  a  sample  of  that  discomfiture  with 
which  the  honorable  gentleman  threatened  me, 
commend  me  to  the  word  discomfiture  for  the 
rest  of  my  life. 

But,  after  all,  this  is  not  the  point  of  the  de- 
bate ;  and  I  must  now  bring  the  gentleman 
back  to  what  is  the  point. 

The  real  question  between  me  and  him  is. 
Has  the  doctrine  been  advanced  at  the  South 
or  the  East,  that  the  population  of  the  West 
should  be  retarded,  or  at  least  need  not  be 
hastened,  on  account  of  its  effect  to  drain  off 
the  people  from  the  Atlantic  States?  Is  this, 
doctrine,  as  has  been  alleged,  of  Eastern  ori- 
gin ?  That  is  the  question.  Has  the  gentleman 
found  any  thing  by  which  he  can  make  good 
his  accusation  ?  I  submit  to  the  Senate,  that 
he  has  entirely  failed  ;  and,  as  far  as  this  de- 
bate has  shown,  the  only  person  who  has  ad- 
vanced such  sentiments  is  a  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  and  a  friend  of  the  honorable 
member  himself.  The  honorable  gentleman 
has  given  no  answer  to  this  ;  there  is  none 
93 


Daniel   Webster 

"which  can  be  given.  The  simple  fact,  while  it 
requires  no  comment  to  enforce  it,  defies  all 
argument  to  refute  it.  I  could  refer  to  the 
speeches  of  another  Southern  gentleman,  in 
years  before,  of  the  same  general  character,  and 
to  the  same  effect,  as  that  which  has  been 
quoted  ;  but  I  will  not  consume  the  time  of  the 
Senate  by  the  reading  of  them. 

So  then,  Sir,  New  England  is  guiltless  of  the 
policy  of  retarding  Western  population,  and  of 
all  envy  and  jealousy  of  the  growth  of  the  new 
States.  Whatever  there  be  of  that  policy  in  the 
country,  no  part  of  it  is  hers.  If  it  has  a  local 
habitation,  the  honorable  member  has  probably 
seen  by  this  time  where  to  look  for  it  ;  and  if  it 
now  has  received  a  name,  he  has  himself  chris- 
tened it. 

We  approach,  at  length,  Sir,  to  a  more  im- 
portant part  of  the  honorable  gentleman's  ob- 
servations. Since  it  does  not  accord  with  my 
views  of  justice  and  policy  to  give  away  the 
public  lands  altogether,  as  a  mere  matter  of 
gratuity,  I  am  asked  by  the  honorable  gentle- 
man on  what  ground  it  is  that  I  consent  to  vote 
them  away  in  particular  instances.  How,  he 
inquires,  do  I  reconcile  with  these  professed 
sentiments,  my  support  of  measures  appropri- 
ating portions  of  the  lands  to  particular  roads, 
particular  canals,  particular  rivers,  and  particu- 
lar institutions  of  education  in  the  West  ?  This 
leads,  Sir,  to  the  real  and  wide  difference  in 
political  opinion  between  the  honorable  gentle- 
94 


Reply  to  Hayne 


man  and  myself.  On  my  part,  I  look  upon  all 
these  objects  as  connected  with  the  common 
good,  fairly  embraced  in  its  object  and  its 
terms  ;  he,  on  the  contrary,  deems  them  all,  if 
good  at  all,  only  local  good.  This  is  our  differ- 
ence. The  interrogatory  which  he  proceeded 
to  put,  at  once  explains  this  difference.  ' '  What 
interest,"  asks  he,  "has  South  Carolina  in  a 
canal  in  Ohio?"  Sir,  this  very  question  is  full 
of  significance.  It  develops  the  gentleman's 
whole  political  system  ;  and  its  answer  ex- 
pounds mine.  Here  we  differ.  I  look  upon  a 
road  over  the  Alleghanies,  a  canal  round  the 
falls  of  the  Ohio,  or  a  canal  or  railway  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Western  waters,  as  being  an  ob- 
ject large  and  extensive  enough  to  be  fairly 
said  to  be  for  the  common  benefit.  The  gentle- 
man thinks  otherwise,  and  this  is  the  key  to  his 
construction  of  the  powers  of  the  government. 
He  may  well  ask  what  interest  has  South  Caro- 
lina in  a  canal  in  Ohio.  On  his  system,  it  is 
true,  she  has  no  interest.  On  that  system,  Ohio 
and  Carolina  are  different  governments,  and 
different  countries  ;  connected  here,  it  is  true, 
by  some  slight  and  ill-defined  bond  of  union, 
but  in  all  main  respects  separate  and  diverse. 
On  that  system,  Carolina  has  no  more  interest 
in  a  canal  in  Ohio  than  in  Mexico.  The  gentle- 
man, therefore,  only  follows  out  his  own  prin- 
ciples ;  he  does  no  more  than  arrive  at  the  nat- 
ural conclusions  of  his  own  doctrines  ;  he  only 
announces  the  true  results  of  that  creed  which 
95 


Daniel   Webster 

lie  has  adopted  himself,  and  would  persuade 
others  to  adopt,  when  he  thus  declares  that 
South  Carolina  has  no  interest  in  a  public  work 
in  Ohio. 

Sir,  we  narrow-minded  people  of  New  Eng- 
land do  not  reason  thus.  Our  notion  of  things 
is  entirely  different.  We  look  upon  the  States, 
not  as  separated,  but  as  united.  We  love  t.o 
dwell  on  that  union,  and  on  the  mutual  happi- 
ness which  it  has  so  much  promoted,  and  the 
common  renown  which  it  has  so  greatly  con- 
tributed to  acquire.  In  our  contemplation, 
Carolina  and  Ohio  are  parts  of  the  same  coun- 
try ;  States,  united  under  the  same  general 
government,  having  interests,  common,  associ- 
ated, intermingled.  In  whatever  is  within  the 
proper  sphere  of  the  constitutional  power  of 
this  government,  we  look  upon  the  States  as 
one.  We  do  not  impose  geographical  limits  to 
our  patriotic  feeling  or  regard  ;  we  do  not  fol- 
low rivers  and  mountains,  and  lines  of  latitude, 
to  find  boundaries,  beyond  which  public  im- 
provements do  not  benefit  us.  We  who  come 
here,  as  agents  and  representatives  of  these 
narrow-minded  and  selfish  men  of  New  Eng- 
land, consider  ourselves  as  bound  to  regard 
with  an  equal  eye  the  good  of  the  whole,  in 
"  whatever  is  within  our  powers  of  legislation. 
Sir,  if  a  railroad  or  canal,  beginning  in  South 
Carolina  and  ending  in  South  Carolina,  ap- 
peared to  me  to  be  of  national  importance  and 
national  magnitude,  believing,  as  I  do,  that  the 
96 


Reply  to   Hayne 

power  of  government  extends  to  the  encourage- 
ment of  works  of  that  description,  if  I  were  to 
stand  up  here  and  ask,  What  interest  has 
Massachusetts  in  a  railroad  in  South  Carolina  ? 
I  should  not  be  willing  to  face  my  constituents. 
These  same  narrow-minded  men  would  tell  me, 
that  they  had  sent  me  to  act  for  the  whole  coun- 
try, 'and  that  one  who  possessed  too  little  com- 
prehension, either  of  intellect  or  feeling,  one 
who  was  not  large  enough,  both  in  mind  and 
in  heart,  to  embrace  the  whole,  was  not  fit  to 
be  intrusted  with  the  interest  of  any  part. 

Sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  enlarge  the  powers  of 
the  government  by  unjustifiable  construction, 
nor  to  exercise  any  not  within  a  fair  interpreta- 
tion. But  when  it  is  believed  that  a  power  does 
exist,  then  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  exer- 
cised for  the  general  benefit  of  the  whole.  So 
far  as  respects  the  exercise  of  such  a  power,  the 
States  are  one.  It  was  the  very  object  of  the 
Constitution  to  create  unity  of  interests  to  the 
extent  of  the  powers  of  the  general  govern- 
ment. In  war  and  peace  we  are  one  ;  in  com- 
merce, one  ;  because  the  authority  of  the  gen- 
eral government  reaches  to  war  and  peace,  and 
to  the  regulation  of  commerce.  I  have  never 
seen  any  more  difficulty  in  erecting  lighthouses 
on  the  lakes,  than  on  the  ocean  ;  in  improving 
the  harbors  of  inland  seas,  than  if  they  were 
within  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide  ;  or  in  re- 
moving obstructions  in  the  vast  streams  of  the 
"West,  more  than  in  any  work  to  facilitate  com- 
97 


Daniel   Webster 

merce  on  the  Atlantic  coast.  If  there  be  any 
power  for  one,  there  is  power  also  for  the  other  ; 
and  they  are  all  and  equally  for  the  common 
good  of  the  country. 

There  are  other  objects,  apparently  more  lo- 
cal, or  the  benefit  of  which  is  less  general,  tow- 
ards which,  nevertheless,  I  have  concurred  with 
others,  to  give  aid  by  donations  of  land.  It  is 
proposed  to  construct  a  road,  in  or  through  one 
of  the  new  States,  in  which  this  government 
possesses  large  quantities  of  land.  Have  the 
United  States  no  right,  or,  as  a  great  and  un- 
taxed  proprietor,  are  they  under  no  obligation 
to  contribute  to  an  object  thus  calculated  to 
promote  the  common  good  of  all  the  proprietors, 
themselves  included?  And  even  with  respect 
to  education,  which  is  the  extreme  case,  let  the 
question  be  considered.  In  the  first  place,  as 
we  have  seen,  it  was  made  matter  of  compact 
with  these  States,  that  they  should  do  their 
part  to  promote  education.  In  the  next  place, 
our  whole  system  of  land  laws  proceeds  on  the 
idea  that  education  is  for  the  common  good  ; 
because,  in  every  division,  a  certain  portion  is 
uniformly  reserved  and  appropriated  for  the  use 
of  schools.  And,  finally,  have  not  these  new 
States  singularly  strong  claims,  founded  on  the 
ground  already  stated,  that  the  government  is 
a  great  untaxed  proprietor,  in  the  ownership  of 
the  soil  ?  It  is  a  consideration  of  great  impor- 
tance, that  probably  there  is  in  no  part  of  the 
country,  or  of  the  world,  so  great  call  for  the 
98 


Reply  to  Hayne 

means  of  education,  as  in  these  new  States, 
owing  to  the  vast  numbers  of  persons  within 
those  ages  in  which  education  and  instruction 
are  usually  received,  if  received  at  all.  This  is 
the  natural  consequence  of  recency  of  settle- 
ment and  rapid  increase.  The  census  of  these 
States  shows  how  great  a  proportion  of  the 
whole  population  occupies  the  classes  between 
infancy  and  manhood.  These  are  the  wide 
fields,  and  here  is  the  deep  and  quick  soil  for 
the  seeds  of  knowledge  and  virtue  ;  and  this  is. 
the  favored  season,  the  very  spring-time  for 
sowing  them.  Let  them  be  disseminated  with- 
out stint.  Let  them  be  scattered  with  a  bounti- 
ful hand,  broadcast.  Whatever  the  govern- 
ment can  fairly  do  towards  these  objects,  in 
my  opinion,  ought  to  be  done. 

These,  Sir,  are  the  grounds,  succinctly  stated, 
on  which  my  votes  for  grants  of  lands  for  par- 
ticular objects  rest  ;  while  I  maintain,  at  the 
same  time,  that  it  is  all  a  common  fund,  for  the 
common  benefit.  And  reasons  like  these,  I 
presume,  have  influenced  the  votes  of  other 
gentlemen  from  New  England.  Those  who 
have  a  different  view  of  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment, of  course,  come  to  different  conclu- 
sions, on  these,  as  on  other  questions.  I  ob- 
served, when  speaking  on  this  subject  before, 
that  if  we  looked  to  any  measure,  whether  for  a 
road,  a  canal,  or  any  thing  else,  intended  for 
the  improvement  of  the  West,  it  would  be  found 
that,  if  the  New  England  ayes  were  struck  out 
99 


Daniel   Webster 

of  the  lists  of  votes,  the  Southern  noes  would 
always  have  rejected  the  measure.  The  truth 
of  this  has  not  been  denied,  and  cannot  be  de- 
nied. In  stating  this,  I  thought  it  just  to  ascribe 
it  to  the  constitutional  scruples  of  the  South, 
rather  than  to  any  other  less  favorable  or  less 
charitable  cause.  But  no  sooner  had  I  done 
this,  than  the  honorable  gentleman  asks  if  I  re- 
proach him  and  his  friends  with  their  constitu- 
tional scruples.  Sir,  I  reproach  nobody.  I 
stated  a  fact,  and  gave  the  most  respectful  rea- 
son for  it  that  occurred  to  me.  The  gentleman 
cannot  deny  the  fact  ;  he  may,  if  he  choose, 
disclaim  the  reason.  It  is  not  long  since  I  had 
occasion,  in  presenting  a  petition  from  his  own 
State,  to  account  for  its  being  intrusted  to  my 
hands,  by  saying,  that  the  constitutional  opin- 
ions of  the  gentleman  and  his  worthy  colleague 
.prevented  them  from  supporting  it.  Sir,  did  I 
state  this  as  matter  of  reproach  ?  Far  from  it. 
Did  I  attempt  to  find  any  other  cause  than  an 
honest  one  for  these  scruples  ?  Sir,  I  did  not. 
It  did  not  become  me  to  doubt  or  to  insinuate 
that  the  gentleman  had  either  changed  his  sen- 
timents, or  that  he  had  made  up  a  set  of  con- 
stitutional opinions  accommodated  to  any  par- 
ticular combination  cf  political  occurrences. 
Had  I  done  so,  I  should  have  felt,  that,  while  I 
was  entitled  to  little  credit  in  thus  questioning 
other  people's  motives,  I  justified  the  whole 
world  in  suspecting  my  own.  But  how  has  the 
.gentleman  returned  this  respect  for  others' 

IOO 


Reply  to   Hayne 

opinions?  His  own  candor  and  justice,  how 
have  they  been  exhibited  towards  the  motives 
of  others,  while  he  has  been  at  so  much  pains 
to  maintain,  what  nobody  has  disputed,  the 
purity  of  his  own?  Why,  Sir,  he  has  asked 
<when,  and  how,  and  ivhy  New  England  votes 
were  found  going  for  measures  favorable  to  the 
West.  He  has  demanded  to  be  informed 
whether  all  this  did  not  begin  in  1825,  and  while 
Ihe  election  of  President  was  still  pending. 

Sir,  to  these  questions  retort  would  be  justi- 
fied ;  and  it  is  both  cogent  and  at  hand.  Never- 
theless, I  will  answer  the  inquiry,  not  by  retort, 
TDut  by  facts.  I  will  tell  the  gentleman  when, 
.and  how,  and  why  New  England  has  supported 
measures  favorable  to  the  West.  I  have  al- 
ready referred  to  the  early  history  of  the  gov- 
ernment, to  the  first  acquisition  of  the  lands,  to 
the  original  laws  for  disposing  of  them,  and  for 
governing  the  territories  where  they  lie  ;  and 
have  shown  the  influence  of  New  England  men 
and  New  England  principles  in  all  these  leading 
measures.  I  should  not  be  pardoned  were  I  to 
go  over  that  ground  again.  Coming  to  more 
recent  times,  and  to  measures  of  a  less  general 
character,  I  have  endeavored  to  prove  that  every 
thing  of  this  kind,  designed  for  Western  im- 
provement, has  depended  on  the  votes  of  New 
England  ;  all  this  is  true  beyond  the  power 
of  contradiction.  And  now,  Sir,  there  are  two 
measures  to  which  I  will  refer,  not  so  ancient 
.as  to  belong  to  the  early  history  of  the  public 
101 


Daniel  Webster 

lands,  and  not  so  recent  as  to  be  on  this  side  of 
the  period  when  the  gentleman  charitably  imag- 
ines a  new  direction  may  have  been  given  to- 
New  England  feeling  and  New  England  votes. 
These  measures,  and  the  New  England  votes 
in  support  of  them,  may  be  taken  as  samples 
and  specimens  of  all  the  rest. 

In  1820  (observe,  Mr.  President,  in  1820)  the 
people  of  the  West  besought  Congress  for  a  re- 
duction in  the  price  of  lands.  In  favor  of  that 
reduction,  New  England,  with  a  delegation  of 
forty  members  in  the  other  house,  gave  thirty- 
three  votes,  and  one  only  against  it.  The  four 
Southern  States,  with  more  than  fifty  members, 
gave  thirty-two  votes  for  it,  and  seven  against 
it.  Again,  in  1821  (observe  again,  Sir,  the 
time),  the  law  passed  for  the  relief  of  the  pur- 
chasers of  the  public  lands.  This  was  a  meas- 
ure of  vital  importance  to  the  "West,  and  more 
especially  to  the  Southwest.  It  authorized  the 
relinquishment  of  contracts  for  lands  which  had 
been  entered  into  at  high  prices,  and  a  reduc- 
tion in  other  cases  of  not  less  than  thirty-seven 
and  a  half  per  cent,  on  the  purchase-money. 
Many  millions  of  dollars,  six  or  seven,  I  believe, 
probably  much  more,  were  relinquished  by  this 
law.  On  this  bill,  New  England,  with  her 
forty  members,  gave  more  affirmative  votes 
than  the  four  Southern  States,  with  their  fifty- 
two  or  fifty-three  members.  These  two  are  far 
the  most  important  general  measures  respecting 
the  public  lands  which  have  been  adopted 
102 


Reply  to   Hayne 

within  the  last  twenty  years.  They  took  place 
in  1820  and  1821.  That  is  the  time  when. 

As  to  the  manner  how,  the  gentleman  already 
sees  that  it  was  by  voting  in  solid  column  for 
the  required  relief  ;  and,  lastly,  as  to  the  cause 
'why,  I  tell  the  gentleman  it  was  because  the 
members  from  New  England  thought  the  meas- 
ures just  and  salutary  ;  because  they  enter- 
tained towards  the  West  neither  envy,  hatred, 
nor  malice  ;  because  they  deemed  it  becoming 
them,  as  just  and  enlightened  public  men,  to 
meet  the  exigency  which  had  arisen  in  the 
West  with  the  appropriate  measure  of  relief  ; 
because  they  felt  it  due  to  their  own  characters, 
and  the  characters  of  their  New  England  pred- 
ecessors in  this  government,  to  act  towards 
the  new  States  in  the  spirit  of  a  liberal,  patron- 
izing, magnanimous  policy.  So  much,  Sir,  for 
the  cause  why  ;  and  I  hope  that  by  this  time, 
Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  is  satisfied  ;  if 
not,  I  do  not  know  when,  or  how,  or  why  he 
ever  will  be. 

Having  recurred  to  these  two  important 
measures,  in  answer  to  the  gentleman's  in- 
quiries, I  must  now  beg  permission  to  go  back 
to  a  period  somewhat  earlier,  for  the  purpose  of 
still  further  showing  how  much,  or  rather  how 
little,  reason  there  is  for  the  gentleman's  in- 
sinuation that  political  hopes  or  fears,  or  party 
associations,  were  the  grounds  of  these  New 
England  votes.  And  after  what  has  been  said, 
I  hope  it  may  be  forgiven  me  if  I  allude  to  some 
103 


Daniel  Webster 

political  opinions  and  votes  of  my  own,  of  very- 
little  public  importance  certainly,  but  which, 
from  the  time  at  which  they  were  given  and 
expressed,  may  pass  for  good  witnesses  on  this 
occasion. 

This  government,  Mr.  President,  from  its- 
origin  to  the  peace  of  1815,  had  been  too  much 
engrossed  with  various  other  important  con- 
cerns to  be  able  to  turn  its  thoughts  inward, 
and  look  to  the  development  of  its  vast  internal 
resources.  In  the  early  part  of  President 
Washington's  administration,  it  was  fully  oc- 
cupied with  completing  its  own  organization, 
providing  for  the  public  debt,  defending  the 
frontiers,  and  maintaining  domestic  peace. 
Before  the  termination  of  that  administration,, 
the  fires  of  the  French  Revolution  blazed  forth, 
as  from  a  new-opened  volcano,  and  the  whole 
breadth  of  the  ocean  did  not  secure  us  from  its 
effects.  The  smoke  and  the  cinders  reached 
us,  though  not  the  burning  lava.  Difficult  and 
agitating  questions,  embarrassing  to  govern- 
ment and  dividing  public  opinion,  sprung  out 
of  the  new  state  of  our  foreign  relations,  and 
were  succeeded  by  others,  and  yet  again  by 
others,  equally  embarrassing  and  equally  ex- 
citing division  and  discord,  through  the  long 
series  of  twenty  years,  till  they  finally  issued  in 
the  war  with  England.  Down  to  the  close  of 
that  war,  no  distinct,  marked,  and  deliberate 
attention  had  been  given,  or  could  have  been 
given,  to  the  internal  condition  of  the  country, 
104 


Reply  to   Hayne 

its  capacities  of  improvement,  or  the  constitu- 
tional power  of  the  government  in  regard  tc* 
objects  connected  with  such  improvement. 

The  peace,  Mr.  President,  brought  about  an 
entirely  new  and  a  most  interesting  state  of 
things  ;  it  opened  to  us  other  prospects  and 
suggested  other  duties.  We  ourselves  were 
changed,  and  the  whole  world  was  changed. 
The  pacification  of  Europe,  after  June,  1815, 
assumed  a  firm  and  permanent  aspect.  The 
nations  evidently  manifested  that  they  were 
disposed  for  peace.  Some  agitation  of  the 
waves  might  be  expected,  even  after  the  storm 
had  subsided,  but  the  tendency  was,  strongly 
and  rapidly,  towards  settled  repose. 

It  so  happened,  Sir,  that  I  was  at  that  time  a 
member  of  Congress,  and,  like  others,  naturally 
turned  my  thoughts  to  the  contemplation  of  the 
recently  altered  condition  of  the  country  and 
of  the  world.  It  appeared  plainly  enough  to 
me,  as  well  as  to  wiser  and  more  experienced 
men,  that  the  policy  of  the  government  would 
naturally  take  a  start  in  a  new  direction  ;  be- 
cause new  directions  would  necessarily  be  given 
to  the  pursuits  and  occupations  of  the  people. 
We  had  pushed  our  commerce  far  and  fast,  un- 
der the  advantage  of  a  neutral  flag.  But  there 
were  now  no  longer  flags,  either  neutral  or  bel- 
ligerent. The  harvest  of  neutrality  had  been 
great,  but  we  had  gathered  it  all.  With  the 
peace  of  Europe,  it  was  obvious  there  would 
spring  up  in  her  circle  of  nations  a  revived  and 
105 


Daniel   Webster 

invigorated  spirit  of  trade,  and  a  new  activity 
in  all  the  business  and  objects  of  civilized  life. 
Hereafter,  our  commercial  gains  were  to  be 
earned  only  by  success  in  a  close  and  intense 
competition.  Other  nations  would  produce  for 
themselves,  and  carry  for  themselves,  and 
manufacture  for  themselves,  to  the  full  extent 
of  their  abilities.  The  crops  of  our  plains  would 
no  longer  sustain  European  armies,  nor  our 
ships  longer  supply  those  whom  war  had  ren- 
dered unable  to  supply  themselves.  It  was  ob- 
vious, that,  under  these  circumstances,  the 
country  would  begin  to  survey  itself,  and  to 
estimate  its  own  capacity  of  improvement. 

And  this  improvement, — how  was  it  to  be  ac- 
complished, and  who  was  to  accomplish  it  ? 
We  were  ten  or  twelve  millions  of  people, 
spread  over  almost  half  a  world.  We  were 
more  than  twenty  States,  some  stretching  along 
the  same  seaboard,  some  along  the  same  line 
of  inland  frontier,  and  others  on  opposite  banks 
of  the  same  vast  rivers.  Two  considerations  at 
once  presented  themselves  with  great  force,  in 
looking  at  this  state  of  things.  One  was,  that 
that  great  branch  of  improvement  which  con- 
sisted in  furnishing  new  facilities  of  intercourse 
necessarily  ran  into  different  States  in  every 
leading  instance,  and  would  benefit  the  citizens 
of  all  such  States.  No  one  State,  therefore,  in 
such  cases,  would  assume  the  whole  expense, 
nor  was  the  cooperation  of  several  States  to  be 
expected.  Take  the  instance  of  the  Delaware 
106 


Reply  to   Hayne 

breakwater.  It  will  cost  several  millions  of 
money.  Would  Pennsylvania  alone  ever  have 
constructed  it  ?  Certainly  never,  while  this 
Union  lasts,  because  it  is  not  for  her  sole  bene- 
fit. Would  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and 
Delaware  have  united  to  accomplish  it  at  their 
joint  expense?  Certainly  not,  for  the  same 
reason.  It  could  not  be  done,  therefore,  but 
by  the  general  government.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  large  inland  undertakings,  except 
that,  in  them,  government,  instead  of  bearing 
the  whole  expense,  cooperates  with  others  who 
bear  a  part.  The  other  consideration  is,  that 
the  United  States  have  the  means.  They  enjoy 
the  revenues  derived  from  commerce,  and  the 
States  have  no  abundant  and  easy  sources  of 
public  income.  The  custom-houses  fill  the 
general  treasury,  while  the  States  have  scanty 
resources,  except  by  resort  to  heavy  direct 
taxes. 

Under  this  view  of  things,  I  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  settle,  at  least  for  myself,  some  definite 
notions  with  respect  to  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment in  regard  to  internal  affairs.  It  may 
not  savor  too  much  of  self-commendation  to  re- 
mark, that,  with  this  object,  I  considered  the 
Constitution,  its  judicial  construction,  its  con- 
temporaneous exposition,  and  the  whole  history 
of  the  legislation  of  Congress  under  it ;  and  I 
arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that  government  had 
power  to  accomplish  sundry  objects,  or  aid  in 
their  accomplishment,  which  are  now  commonly 
107 


Daniel   Webster 

spoken  of  as  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  That 
conclusion,  Sir,  may  have  been  right,  or  it  may 
have  been  wrong.  I  am  not  about  to  argue 
the  grounds  of  it  at  large.  I  say  only,  that  it 
was  adopted  and  acted  on  even  so  early  as  in 
1816.  Yes,  Mr.  President,  I  made  up  my  opin- 
ion, and  determined  on  my  intended  course  of 
political  conduct,  on  these  subjects,  in  the  Four- 
teenth Congress,  in  1816.  And  now,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I  have  further  to  say,  that  I  made  up 
these  opinions,  and  entered  on  this  course  of 
political  conduct,  Teucro  duce.  Yes,  Sir,  I  pur- 
sued in  all  this  a  South  Carolina  track  on 
the  doctrines  of  internal  improvement.  South 
Carolina,  as  she  was  then  represented  in  the 
other  house,  set  forth  in  1816  under  a  fresh  and 
leading  breeze,  and  I  was  among  the  followers. 
But  if  my  leader  sees  new  lights  and  turns  a 
sharp  corner,  unless  I  see  new  lights  also,  I 
keep  straight  on  in  the  same  path.  I  repeat, 
that  leading  gentlemen  from  South  Carolina 
were  first  and  foremost  in  behalf  of  the  doc- 
trines of  internal  improvements,  when  those 
doctrines  came  first  to  be  considered  and  acted 
upon  in  Congress.  The  debate  on  the  bank 
question,  on  the  tariff  of  1816,  and  on  the  direct 
tax,  will  show  who  was  who,  and  what  was- 
what,  at  that  time. 

The  tariff  of  1816,  (one  of  the  plain  cases  of 

oppression  and  usurpation,  from  which,  if  the 

government  does  not  recede,  individual  States 

may  justly  secede  from  the  government,)  is,  Sir,. 

108 


Reply  to  Hayne 

in  truth,  a  South  Carolina  tariff,  supported  by 
South  Carolina  votes.  But  for  those  votes,  it 
could  not  have  passed  in  the  form  in  which  it 
did  pass  ;  whereas,  if  it  had  depended  on  Massa- 
chusetts votes,  it  would  have  been  lost.  Does, 
not  the  honorable  gentleman  well  know  all  this  ? 
There  are  certainly  those  who  do,  full  well, 
know  it  all.  I  do  not  say  this  to  reproach  South. 
Carolina.  I  only  state  the  fact  ;  and  I  think  it 
will  appear  to  be  true,  that  among  the  earliest 
and  boldest  advocates  of  the  tariff,  as  a  measure 
of  protection,  and  on  the  express  ground  of 
protection,  were  leading  gentlemen  of  South- 
Carolina  in  Congress.  I  did  not  then,  and  can- 
not now,  understand  their  language  in  any 
other  sense.  While  this  tariff  of  1816  was  under 
discussion  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  an 
honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia,  now  of  this. 
house,  moved  to  reduce  the  proposed  duty  on. 
cotton.  He  failed,  by  four  votes,  South  Caro- 
lina giving  three  votes  (enough  to  have  turned- 
the  scale)  against  his  motion.  The  act.  Sir, 
then  passed,  and  received  on  its  passage  the 
support  of  a  majority  of  the  Representatives  of 
South  Carolina  present  and  voting.  This  act 
is  the  first  in  the  order  of  those  now  denounced 
as  plain  usurpations.  We  see  it  daily  in  the 
list,  by  the  side  of  those  of  1824  and  1828,  as  a 
case  of  manifest  oppression,  justifying  disunion. 
1  put  it  home  to  the  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina,  that  his  own  State  was  not  only 
"  art  and  part"  in  this  measure,  but  the  causa, 
log 


Daniel  Webster 

causans.  Without  her  aid,  this  seminal  princi- 
ple of  mischief,  this  root  of  Upas,  could  not  have 
been  planted.  I  have  already  said,  and  it  is 
true,  that  this  act  proceeded  on  the  ground  of 
protection.  It  interfered  directly  with  existing 
interests  of  great  value  and  amount.  It  cut  up 
the  Calcutta  cotton  trade  by  the  roots,  but  it 
passed,  nevertheless,  and  it  passed  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  protecting  manufactures,  on  the  princi- 
ple against  free  trade,  on  the  principle  opposed 
to  that  which  lets  us  alone. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  were  the  opinions  of  im- 
portant and  leading  gentlemen  from  South 
Carolina,  on  the  subject  of  internal  improve- 
ment, in  1816.  I  went  out  of  Congress  the  next 
year,  and,  returning  again  in  1823,  thought  I 
found  South  Carolina  where  I  had  left  her.  I 
really  supposed  that  all  things  remained  as 
they  were,  and  that  the  South  Carolina  doctrine 
of  internal  improvements  would  be  defended 
by  the  same  eloquent  voices,  and  the  same 
strong  arms,  as  formerly.  In  the  lapse  of  these 
six  years,  it  is  true,  political  associations  had 
assumed  a  new  aspect  and  new  divisions.  A 
strong  party  had  arisen  in  the  South  hostile  to 
the  doctrine  of  internal  improvements.  Anti- 
consolidation  was  the  flag  under  which  this 
party  fought ;  and  its  supporters  inveighed 
against  internal  improvements,  much  after  the 
manner  in  which  the  honorable  gentleman  has 
now  inveighed  against  them,  as  part  and  parcel 
of  the  system  of  consolidation.  Whether  this 
no 


Reply  to   Hayne 

party  arose  in  South  Carolina  itself,  or  in  the- 
neighborhood,  is  more  than  I  know.  1  think 
the  latter.  However  that  may  have  been,  there 
were  those  found  in  South  Carolina  ready  to 
make  war  upon  it,  and  who  did  make  intrepid 
war  upon  it.  Names  being  regarded  as  things 
in  such  controversies,  they  bestowed  on  the 
anti-improvement  gentlemen  the  appellation  of 
Radicals.  Yes,  Sir,  the  appellation  of  Radi- 
cals, as  a  term  of  distinction  applicable  and  ap- 
plied to  those  who  denied  the  liberal  doctrines 
of  internal  improvement,  originated,  according, 
to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  somewhere  be- 
tween North  Carolina  and  Georgia.  Well,  Sir, 
these  mischievous  Radicals  were  to  be  put 
down,  and  the  strong  arm  of  South  Carolina 
was  stretched  out  to  put  them  down.  About 
this  time  I  returned  to  Congress.  The  battle 
with  the  Radicals  had  been  fought,  and  our 
South  Carolina  champions  of  the  doctrines  of 
internal  improvement  had  nobly  maintained 
their  ground,  and  were  understood  to  have 
achieved  a  victory.  We  looked  upon  them  as 
conquerors.  They  had  driven  back  the  enemy 
with  discomfiture,  a  thing,  by  the  way,  Sir, 
which  is  not  always  performed  when  it  is  prom- 
ised. A  gentleman  to  whom  I  have  already 
referred  in  this  debate  had  come  into  Congress, 
during  my  absence  from  it,  from  South  Caro- 
lina, and  had  brought  with  him  a  high  reputa- 
tion for  ability.  He  came  from  a  school  with 
which  we  had  been  acquainted,  et  noscttur  a 
in 


Daniel   Webster 

sociis.  I  hold  in  my  hand,  Sir,  a  printed  speech 
of  this  distinguished  gentleman,  "  ON  INTERNAL 
IMPROVEMENTS,"  delivered  about  the  period  to 
•which  I  now  refer,  and  printed  with  a  few  in- 
troductory remarks  upon  consolidation ;  in 
which,  Sir,  I  think  he  quite  consolidated  the 
arguments  of  his  opponents,  the  Radicals,  if  to 
£rush  be  to  consolidate.  I  give  you  a  short  but 
significant  quotation  from  these  remarks.  He 
is  speaking  of  a  pamphlet,  then  recently  pub- 
lished, entitled  "  Consolidation;  "  and  having 
alluded  to  the  question  of  renewing  the  charter 
of  the  former  Bank  of  the  United  States,  he 
says : — 

"  Moreover,  in  the  early  history  of  parties,  and  when 
:Mr.  Crawford  advocated  a  renewal  of  the  old  charter, 
it  was  considered  a  Federal  measure  ;  which  internal 
improvement  never  was,  as  this  author  erroneously 
states.  This  latter  measure  originated  in  the  admin- 
istration of  Mr.  Jefferson,  with  the  appropriation  for 
the  Cumberland  Road  ;  and  was  first  proposed,  as  a 
system,  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  carried  through  the 
House  of  Representatives  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
Republicans,  including  almost  every  one  of  the  lead- 
ing men  who  carried  us  through  the  late  war." 

So,  then,  internal  improvement  is  not  one  of 
the  Federal  heresies.  One  paragraph  more, 
Sir:- 

"  The  author  in  question,  not  content  with  denounc- 
ing as  Federalists,  General  Jackson,  Mr.  Adams,  Mr. 
Calhoun,  and  the  majority  of  the  South  Carolina 
delegation  in  Congress,  modestly  extends  the  de- 
nunciation to  Mr.  Monroe  and  the  whole  Republican 
jparty.  Here  are  his  words  : — '  During  the  administra- 
112 


Reply  to   Hayne 


tion  of  Mr.  Monroe  much  has  passed  which  the  Re- 
publican party  would  be  glad  .to  approve  if  they 
•could  !  !  But  the  principal  feature,  and  that  which 
has  chiefly  elicited  these  observations,  is  the  renewal 
of  the  SYSTEM  OF  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.'  Now 
this  measure  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  115  to  86  of  a 
.Republican  Congress,  and  sanctioned  by  a  Republican 
President.  Who,  then,  is  this  author,  who  assumes 
the  high  prerogative  of  denouncing,  and  the  name  of 
the  Republican  party,  the  Republican  administration 
of  the  country  ?  A  denunciation  including  within  its 
.sweep  Calhoun,  Lowndes,  and  Cheves,  men  who  will  be 
regarded  as  the  brightest  ornaments  of  South  Caro- 
lina, and  the  strongest  pillars  of  the  Republican  party, 
as  long  as  the  late  war  shall  be  remembered,  and  talents 
and  patriotism  shall  be  regarded  as  the  proper  objects 
of  the  admiration  and  gratitude  of  a  free  people  !  ! " 

Such  are  the  opinions,  Sir,  which  were  main- 
tained by  South  Carolina  gentlemen,  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  on  the  subject  of  in- 
ternal improvements,  when  I  took  my  seat  there 
as  a  member  from  Massachusetts  in  1823.  But 
this  is  not  all.  We  had  a  bill  before  us,  and 
passed  it  in  that  house,  entitled,  "An  Act  to 
procure  the  necessary  surveys,  plans,  and  esti- 
mates upon  the  subject  of  roads  and  canals." 
It  authorized  the  President  to  cause  surveys 
and  estimates  to  be  made  of  the  routes  of  such 
roads  and  canals  as  he  might  deem  of  national 
importance  in  a  commercial  or  military  point  of 
.  view,  or  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail,  and 
.  appropriated  thirty  thousand  dollars  out  of  the 
treasury  to  defray  the  expense.  This  act, 
though  preliminary  in  its  nature,  covered  the 
whole  ground.  It  took  for  granted  the  com- 


Daniel   Webster 

plete  power  of  internal  improvement,  as  far  as 
any  of  its  advocates  had  ever  contended  for  it. 
Having  passed  the  other  house,  the  bill  came 
up  to  the  Senate,  and  was  here  considered 
and  debated  in  April,  1824.  The  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina  was  a  member 
of  the  Senate  at  that  time.  While  the  bill 
was  under  consideration  here,  a  motion  was 
made  to  add  the  following  proviso  : — ' '  Pro- 
vided, That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be 
construed  to  affirm  or  admit  a  power  in  Con- 
gress, on  their  own  authority,  to  make  roads  or 
canals  within  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union." 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken  on  this  proviso, 
and  the  honorable  member  voted  in  the  nega- 
tive !  The  proviso  failed. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  add  this  proviso, 
viz  :— "  Provided,  That  the  faith  of  the  United 
States  is  hereby  pledged,  that  no  money  shall 
ever  be  expended  for  roads  or  canals,  except  it 
shall  be  among  the  several  States,  and  in  the 
same  proportion  as  direct  taxes  are  laid  and 
assessed  by  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution." 
The  honorable  member  voted  against  this  pro- 
viso also,  and  it  failed.  The  bill  was  then  put 
on  its  passage,  and  the  honorable  member  voted 
for  it,  and  it  passed,  and  became  a  law. 

Now,  it  strikes  me,  Sir,  that  there  is  no  main- 
taining these  votes,  but  upon  the  power  of  in- 
ternal improvement,  in  its  broadest  sense.  In 
truth,  these  bills  for  surveys  and  estimates  have 
always  been  considered  as  test  questions  ;  they 
114 


Reply  to  Hayne 

show  who  is  for  and  who  against  internal  im- 
provement. This  law  itself  went  the  whole 
length,  and  assumed  the  full  and  complete 
power.  The  gentleman's  votes  sustained  that 
power,  in  every  form  in  which  the  various 
propositions  to  amend  presented  it.  He  went 
for  the  entire  and  unrestrained  authority,  with- 
out consulting  the  States,  and  without  agreeing 
to  any  proportionate  distribution.  And  now 
suffer  me  to  remind  you,  Mr.  President,  that  it 
is  this  very  same  power,  thus  sanctioned,  in 
every  form,  by  the  gentleman's  own  opinion, 
which  is  so  plain  and  manifest  a  usurpation, 
that  the  State  of  South  Carolina  is  supposed  to 
be  justified  in  refusing  submission  to  any  laws 
carrying  the  power  into  effect.  Truly,  Sir,  is 
not  this  a  little  too  hard  ?  May  we  not  crave 
some  mercy,  under  favor  and  protection  of  the 
gentleman's  own  authority  ?  Admitting  that  a 
road,  or  a  canal,  must  be  written  down,  flat 
usurpation  as  was  ever  committed,  may  we  find 
no  mitigation  in  our  respect  for  his  place,  and 
his  vote,  as  one  that  knows  the  law  ? 

The  tariff,  which  South  Carolina  had  an  effi- 
cient hand  in  establishing,  in  1816,  and  this  as- 
serted power  of  internal  improvement,  ad- 
vanced by  her  in  the  same  year,  and,  as  we 
have  seen,  approved  and  sanctioned  by  her 
Representatives  in  1824,  these  two  measures 
are  the  great  grounds  on  which  she  is  now 
thought  to  be  justified  in  breaking  up  the 
Union,  if  she  sees  fit  to  break  it  up  ! 


Daniel  Webster 

I  may  now  safely  say,  I  think,  that  we  have 
had  the  authority  of  leading  and  distinguished 
gentlemen  from  South  Carolina  in  support  of 
the  doctrine  of  internal  improvement.  I  re- 
peat, that,  up  to  1824,  I  for  one  followed  South 
Carolina  ;  but  when  that  star,  in  its  ascension, 
veered  off  in  an  unexpected  direction,  1  relied 
on  its  light  no  longer. 

Here  the  Vice-President  said,  "  Does  the  chair  under- 
stand the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  say  that 
the  person  now  occupying  the  chair  of  the  Senate  has 
changed  his  opinions  on  the'  subject  of  internal  im- 
provements ? " 

From  nothing  ever  said  to  me,  Sir,  have  I 
had  reason  to  know  of  any  change  in  the  opin- 
ions of  the  person  filling  the  chair  of  the  Senate. 
If  such  change  has  taken  place,  I  regret  it.  I 
speak  generally  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina. 
Individuals  we  know  there  are,  who  hold  opin- 
ions favorable  to  the  power.  An  application 
for  its  exercise,  in  behalf  of  a  public  work  in 
South  Carolina  itself,  is  now  pending,  I  believe, 
in  the  other  house,  presented  by  members  from 
that  State. 

I  have  thus,  Sir,  perhaps  not  without  some 
tediousness  of  detail,  shown,  if  I  am  in  error 
on  the  subject  of  internal  improvement,  how, 
and  in  what  company,  I  fell  into  that  error. 
If  I  am  wrong,  it  is  apparent  who  misled 
me. 

I  go  to  other  remarks  of  the  honorable  mem- 
ber ;  and  I  have  to  complain  of  an  entire  mis- 
116 


Reply  to   Hayne 

apprehension  of  what  I  said  on  the  subject  of 
the  national  debt,  though  I  can  hardly  perceive 
how  any  one  could  misunderstand  me.  What 
I  said  was,  not  that  I  wished  to  put  off  the  pay- 
ment of  the  debt,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  I 
had  always  voted  for  every  measure  for  its  re- 
duction, as  uniformly  as  the  gentleman  himself. 
He  seems  to  claim  the  exclusive  merit  of  a  dis- 
position to  reduce  the  public  charge.  I  do  not 
allow  it  to  him.  As  a  debt,  I  was,  I  am  for 
paying  it,  because  it  is  a  charge  on  our  finances, 
and  on  the  industry  of  the  country.  But  I  ob- 
served, that  I  thought  I  perceived  a  morbid 
fervor  on  that  subject,  an  excessive  anxiety  to 
pay  off  the  debt,  not  so  much  because  it  is  a 
debt  simply,  as  because,  while  it  lasts,  it  fur- 
nishes one  objection  to  disunion.  It  is,  while 
it  continues,  a  tie  of  common  interest.  I  did 
not  impute  such  motives  to  the  honorable  mem- 
ber himself,  but  that  there  is  such  a  feeling  in 
existence  I  have  not  a  particle  of  doubt.  The 
most  I  said  was,  that  if  one  effect  of  the  debt 
was  to  strengthen  our  Union,  that  effect  itself 
was  not  regretted  by  me,  however  much  others 
might  regret  it.  The  gentleman  has  not  seen 
how  to  reply  to  this,  otherwise  than  by  suppos- 
ing me  to  have  advanced  the  doctrine  that  a 
national  debt  is  a  national  blessing.  Others,  I 
must  hope,  will  find  much  less  difficulty  in  un- 
derstanding me.  I  distinctly  and  pointedly 
cautioned  the  honorable  member  not  to  under- 
stand me  as  expressing  an  opinion  favorable  to 
117 


Daniel  Webster 

the  continuance  of  the  debt.  I  repeated  this 
caution,  and  repeated  it  more  than  once  ;  but 
it  was  thrown  away. 

On  yet  another  point,  I  was  still  more  unac- 
countably misunderstood.  The  gentleman  had 
harangued  against ' '  consolidation. ' '  I  told  him, 
in  reply,  that  there  was  one  kind  of  consolida- 
tion to  which  I  was  attached,  and  that  was  the 
consolidation  of  our  Union  ;  that  this  was  pre- 
cisely that  consolidation  to  which  I  feared 
others  were  not  attached,  and  that  such  con- 
solidation was  the  very  end  of  the  Constitution, 
the  leading  object,  as  they  had  informed  us 
themselves,  which  its  f  ramers  had  kept  in  view. 
I  turned  to  their  communication,  and  read  their 
very  words,  "  the  consolidation  of  the  Union," 
and  expressed  my  devotion  to  this  sort  of  con- 
solidation. I  said,  in  terms,  that  I  wished  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  to  augment  the  powers 
of  this  government  ;  that  my  object  was  to 
preserve,  not  to  enlarge  ;  and  that  by  consoli- 
dating the  Union  I  understood  no  more  than 
the  strengthening  of  the  Union,  and  perpetu- 
ating it.  Having  been  thus  explicit,  having 
thus  read  from  the  printed  book  the  precise  words 
which  I  adopted,  as  expressing  my  own  senti- 
ments, it  passes  comprehension  how  any  man 
could  understand  me  as  contending  for  an  exten- 
sion of  the  powers  of  the  government,  or  for  con- 
solidation in  that  odious  sense  in  which  it  means 
an  accumulation,  in  the  federal  government, 
of  the  powers  properly  belonging  to  the  States. 
118 


Reply  to   Hayne 


I  repeat,  Sir,  that,  in  adopting  the  sentiment 
of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  I  read  their 
language  audibly,  and  word  for  word  ;  and  I 
pointed  out  the  distinction,  just  as  fully  as  I 
have  now  done,  between  the  consolidation  of 
the  Union  and  that  other  obnoxious  consolida- 
tion which  I  disclaimed.  And  yet  the  honor- 
able member  misunderstood  me.  The  gentle- 
man had  said  that  he  wished  for  no  fixed  rev- 
enue,— not  a  shilling.  If  by  a  word  he  could 
convert  the  Capitol  into  gold,  he  would  not  do 
it.  Why  all  this  fear  of  revenue  ?  Why,  Sir, 
because,  as  the  gentleman  told  us,  it  tends  to 
consolidation.  Now  this  can  mean  neither 
more  nor  less  than  that  a  common  revenue  is  a 
common  interest,  and  that  all  common  interests 
tend  to  preserve  the  union  of  the  States.  I 
confess  I  like  that  tendency  ;  if  the  gentleman 
dislikes  it,  he  is  right  in  deprecating  a  shilling 
of  fixed  revenue.  So  much,  Sir,  for  consolida- 
tion. 

As  well  as  I  recollect  the  course  of  his  re- 
marks, the  honorable  gentleman  next  recurred 
to  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  He  did  not  doubt 
the  word  must  be  of  unpleasant  sound  to  me, 
and  proceeded,  with  an  effort  neither  new  nor 
attended  with  new  success,  to  involve  me  and 
my  votes  in  inconsistency  and  contradiction. 
I  am  happy  the  honorable  gentleman  has  fur- 
nished me  an  opportunity  of  a  timely  remark 
or  two  on  that  subject.  I  was  glad  he  ap- 
proached it,  for  it  is  a  question  I  enter  upon 
119 


Daniel   Webster 

without  fear  from  any  body.  The  strenuous 
toil  of  the  gentleman  has  been  to  raise  an  in- 
consistency between  my  dissent  to  the  tariff  in 
1824,  and  my  vote  in  1828.  It  is  labor  lost.  He 
pays  undeserved  compliment  to  my  speech  in 
1824.  ;  but  this  is  to  raise  me  high,  that  my  fall, 
as  he  would  have  it,  in  1828,  may  be  more  sig- 
nal. Sir,  there  was  no  fall.  Between  the 
ground  I  stood  on  in  1824  and  that  I  took  in 
1828,  there  was  not  only  no  precipice,  but  no 
declivity.  It  was  a  change  of  position  to  meet 
new  circumstances,  but  on  the  same  level.  A 
plain  tale  explains  the  whole  matter.  In  1816 
I  had  not  acquiesced  in  the  tariff,  then  sup- 
ported by  South  Carolina.  To  some  parts  of  it, 
especially,  I  felt  and  expressed  great  repug- 
nance. I  held  the  same  opinions  in  1820,  at 
the  meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  to  which  the  gen- 
tleman has  alluded.  I  said  then,  and  say  now, 
that,  as  an  original  question,  the  authority  of 
Congress  to  exercise  the  revenue  power,  with 
direct  reference  to  the  protection  of  manufac- 
tures, is  a  questionable  authority,  far  more 
questionable,  in  my  judgment,  than  the  power 
of  internal  improvements.  I  must  confess,  Sir, 
that  in  one  respect  some  impression  has  been 
made  on  my  opinions  lately.  Mr.  Madison's 
publication  has  put  the  power  in  a  very  strong 
light.  He  has  placed  it,  I  must  acknowledge, 
upon  grounds  of  construction  and  argument 
which  seem  impregnable.  But  even  if  the 
power  were  doubtful,  on  the  face  of  the  Consti- 
120 


Reply  to  Hayne 

tution  itself,  it  had  been  assumed  and  asserted 
in  the  first  revenue  law  ever  passed  under  that 
same  Constitution  ;  and  on  this  ground,  as  a 
matter  settled  by  contemporaneous  practice,  I 
had  refrained  from  expressing  the  opinion  that 
the  tariff  laws  transcended  constitutional  limits, 
as  the  gentleman  supposes.  What  I  did  say  at 
Faneuil  Hall,  as  far  as  I  now  remember,  was, 
that  this  was  originally  matter  of  doubtful  con- 
struction. The  gentleman  himself,  I  suppose, 
thinks  there  is  no  doubt  about  it,  and  that  the 
laws  are  plainly  against  the  Constitution.  Mr. 
Madison's  letters,  already  referred  to,  contain, 
in  my  judgment,  by  far  the  most  able  exposi- 
tion extant  of  this  part  of  the  Constitution.  He 
has  satisfied  me,  so  far  as  the  practice  of  the 
government  had  left  it  an  open  question. 

With  a  great  majority  of  the  Representatives 
of  Massachusetts,  I  voted  against  the  tariff  of 
1824.  My  reasons  were  then  given,  and  I  will 
not  now  repeat  them.  But,  notwithstanding 
our  dissent,  the  great  States  of  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Kentucky  went  for 
the  bill,  in  almost  unbroken  column,  and  it 
passed.  Congress  and  the  President  sanctioned 
it,  and  it  became  the  law  of  the  land.  What, 
then,  were  we  to  do?  Our  only  option  was, 
either  to  fall  in  with  this  settled  course  of  pub- 
lic policy,  and  accommodate  ourselves  to  it  as 
well  as  we  could,  or  to  embrace  the  South  Caro- 
lina doctrine,  and  talk  of  nullifying  the  statute 
by  State  interference. 

121 


Daniel  Webster 

This  last  alternative  did  not  suit  our  princi- 
ples, and  of  course  we  adopted  the  former.  In 
1827,  the  subject  came  again  before  Congress, 
on  a  proposition  to  afford  some  relief  to  the 
branch  of  wool  and  woollens.  We  looked  upon 
the  system  of  protection  as  being  fixed  and 
settled.  The  law  of  1824  remained.  It  had 
gone  into  full  operation,  and,  in  regard  to  some 
objects  intended  by  it,  perhaps  most  of  them, 
had  produced  all  its  expected  effects.  No  man 
proposed  to  repeal  it  ;  no  man  attempted  to  re- 
new the  general  contest  on  its  principle.  But, 
owing  to  subsequent  and  unforeseen  occur- 
rences, the  benefit  intended  by  it  to  wool  and 
woollen  fabrics  had  not  been  realized.  Events 
not  known  here  when  the  law  passed  had  taken 
place,  which  defeated  its  object  in  that  par- 
ticular respect.  A  measure  was  accordingly 
brought  forward  to  meet  this  precise  deficiency, 
to  remedy  this  particular  defect.  It  was  lim- 
ited to  wool  and  woollens.  Was  ever  any  thing 
more  reasonable  ?  If  the  policy  of  the  tariff 
laws  had  become  established  in  principle,  as 
the  permanent  policy  of  the  government,  should 
they  not  be  revised  and  amended,  and  made 
equal,  like  other  laws,  as  exigencies  should 
arise,  or  justice  require?  Because  we  had 
doubted  about  adopting  the  system,  were  we  to 
refuse  to  cure  its  manifest  defects,  after  it  had 
been  adopted,  and  when  no  one  attempted  its 
repeal?  And  this,  Sir,  is  the  inconsistency  so 
much  bruited.  I  had  voted  against  the  tariff 
122 


Reply  to   Hayne 


of  1824,  but  it  passed  ;  and  in  1827  and  1828,  I 
voted  to  amend  it,  in  a  point  essential  to  the 
interest  of  my  constituents.  Where  is  the  in- 
consistency ?  Could  I  do  otherwise  ?  Sir,  does 
political  consistency  consist  in  always  giving 
negative  votes?  Does  it  require  of  a  public 
man  to  refuse  to  concur  in  amending  laws,  be- 
cause they  passed  against  his  consent?  Hav- 
ing voted  against  the  tariff  originally,  does  con- 
sistency demand  that  I  should  do  all  in  my 
power  to  maintain  an  unequal  tariff,  burden- 
some to  my  own  constituents  in  many  respects, 
favorable  in  none  ?  To  consistency  of  that  sort, 
I  lay  no  claim.  And  there  is  another  sort  to 
which  I  lay  as  little,  and  that  is,  a  kind  of  con- 
sistency by  which  persons  feel  themselves  as 
much  bound  to  oppose  a  proposition  after  it  has 
become  a  law  of  the  land  as  before. 

The  bill  of  1827,  limited,  as  I  have  said,  to  the 
single  object  in  which  the  tariff  of  1824  had 
manifestly  failed  in  its  effect,  passed  the  House 
of  Representatives,  but  was  lost  here.  We 
had  then  the  act  of  1828.  I  need  not  recur  to 
the  history  of  a  measure  so  recent.  Its  enemies 
spiced  it  with  whatsoever  they  thought  would 
render  it  distasteful  ;  its  friends  took  it,  drugged 
as  it  was.  Vast  amounts  of  property,  many 
millions,  had  been  invested  in  manufactures, 
under  the  inducements  of  the  act  of  1824. 
Events  called  loudly,  as  I  thought,  for  further 
regulation  to  secure  the  degree  of  protection 
intended  by  that  act.  I  was  disposed  to  vote 
123 


Daniel  Webster 

for  such  regulation,  and  desired  nothing  more  ; 
but  certainly  was  not  to  be  bantered  out  of  my 
purpose  by  a  threatened  augmentation  of  duty 
on  molasses,  put  into  the  bill  for  the  avowed 
purpose  of  making  it  obnoxious.  The  vote 
may  have  been  right  or  wrong,  wise  or  unwise  ; 
but  it  is  little  less  than  absurd  to  allege  against 
it  an  inconsistency  with  opposition  to  the 
former  law. 

Sir,  as  to  the  general  subject  of  the  tariff,  I 
have  little  now  to  say.  Another  opportunity 
may  be  presented.  I  remarked  the  other  day, 
that  this  policy  did  not  begin  with  us  in  New 
England  ;  and  yet,  Sir,  New  England  is 
charged  with  vehemence  as  being  favorable,  or 
charged  with  equal  vehemence  as  being  un- 
favorable, to  the  tariff  policy,  just  as  best  suits 
the  time,  place,  and  occasion  for  making  some 
charge  against  her.  The  credulity  of  the  pub- 
lic has  been  put  to  its  extreme  capacity  of  false 
impression  relative  to  her  conduct  in  this  par- 
ticular. Through  all  the  South,  during  the 
late  contest,  it  was  New  England  policy  and  a 
New  England  administration  that  were  afflict- 
ing the  country  with  a  tariff  beyond  all  endur- 
ance ;  while  on  the  other  side  of  the  Alleghanies 
even  the  act  of  1828  itself,  the  very  sublimated 
essence  of  oppression,  according  to  Southern 
opinions,  was  pronounced  to  be  one  of  those 
blessings  for  which  the  West  was  indebted  to 
the  "  generous  South." 

With  large  investments  in  manufacturing 
124 


Reply  to   Hayne 


establishments,  and  many  and  various  interests 
connected  with  and  dependent  on  them,  it  is 
not  to  be  expected  that  New  England,  any- 
more than  other  portions  of  the  country,  will 
now  consent  to  any  measure  destructive  or 
highly  dangerous.  The  duty  of  the  govern- 
ment, at  the  present  moment,  would  seem  to 
be  to  preserve,  not  to  destroy  ;  to  maintain  the 
position  which  it  has  assumed  ;  and,  for  one,  1 
shall  feel  it  an  indispensable  obligation  to  hold 
it  steady,  as  far  as  in  my  power,  to  that  degree 
of  protection  which  it  has  undertaken  to  be- 
stow. No  more  of  the  tariff. 

Professing  to  be  provoked  by  what  he  chose 
to  consider  a  charge  made  by  me  against  South 
Carolina,  the  honorable  member,  Mr.  President, 
has  taken  up  a  new  crusade  against  New  Eng- 
land. Leaving  altogether  the  subject  of  the 
public  lands,  in  which  his  success,  perhaps,  had 
been  neither  distinguished  nor  satisfactory,  and 
letting  go,  also,  of  the  topic  of  the  tariff,  he 
sallied  forth  in  a  general  assault  on  the  opin- 
ions, politics,  and  parties  of  New  England,  as 
they  have  been  exhibited  in  the  last  thirty 
years.  This  is  natural.  The  "  narrow  policy" 
of  the  public  lands  had  proved  a  legal  settle- 
ment in  South  Carolina,  and  was  not  to  be  re- 
moved. The  "accursed  policy"  of  the  tariff, 
also,  had  established  the  fact  of  its  birth  and, 
parentage  in  the  same  State.  No  wonder, 
therefore,  the  gentleman  wished  to  carry  the 
war,  as  he  expressed  it,  into  the  enemy's  coun- 
125 


Daniel  Webster  - 

try.  Prudently  willing  to  quit  these  subjects, 
he  was,  doubtless,  desirous  of  fastening  on 
others,  which  could  not  be  transferred  south  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  The  politics  of  New 
England  became  his  theme  ;  and  it  was  in  this 
part  of  his  speech,  I  think,  that  he  menaced  me 
with  such  sore  discomfiture.  Discomfiture  ! 
Why,  Sir,  when  he  attacks  any  thing  which  I 
maintain,  and  overthrows  it,  when  he  turns  the 
right  or  left  of  any  position  which  I  take  up, 
when  he  drives  me  from  any  ground  I  choose 
to  occupy,  he  may  then  talk  of  discomfiture,  but 
not  till  that  distant  day.  What  has  he  done  ? 
Has  he  maintained  his  own  charges  ?  Has  he 
proved  what  he  alleged?  Has  he  sustained 
himself  in  his  attack  on  the  government,  and 
on  the  history  of  the  North,  in  the  matter  of 
the  public  lands  ?  Has  he  disproved  a  fact,  re- 
futed a  proposition,  weakened  an  argument, 
maintained  by  me  ?  Has  he  come  within  beat 
of  drum  of  any  position  of  mine  ?  O,  no  ;  but 
he  has  "carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's 
country"  !  Carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's 
country  !  Yes,  Sir,  and  what  sort  of  a  war  has 
he  made  of  it  ?  Why,  Sir,  he  has  stretched  a 
drag-net  over  the  whole  surface  of  perished 
pamphlets,  indiscreet  sermons,  frothy  para- 
graphs, and  fuming  popular  addresses  ;  over 
whatever  the  pulpit  in  its  moments  of  alarm, 
the  press  in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their  ex- 
travagance, have  severally  thrown  off  in  times 
of  general  excitement  and  violence.  He  has 
126 


Reply  to  Hayne 

thus  swept  together  a  mass  of  such  things  as, 
but  that  they  are  now  old.  and  cold,  the  public 
health  would  have  required  him  rather  to  leave 
in  their  state  of  dispersion.  For  a  good  long 
hour  or  two,  we  had  the  unbroken  pleasure  of 
listening  to  the  honorable  member,  while  he  re- 
cited with  his  usual  grace  and  spirit,  and  with 
evident  high  gusto,  speeches,  pamphlets,  ad- 
dresses, and  all  the  et  cateras  of  the  political 
press,  such  as  warm  heads  produce  in  warm 
times  ;  and  such  as  it  would  be  "  discomfiture" 
indeed  for  any  one,  whose  taste  did  not  delight 
in  that  sort  of  reading,  to  be  obliged  to  peruse. 
This  is  his  war.  This  it  is  to  carry  war  into  the 
enemy's  country.  It  is  in  an  invasion  of  this 
sort,  that  he  flatters  himself  with  the  expecta- 
tion of  gaining  laurels  fit  to  adorn  a  Senator's 
brow  ! 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not,  it  will  not,  I  trust, 
be  expected  that  I  should,  either  now  or  at  any 
time,  separate  this  farrago  into  parts,  and  an- 
swer and  examine  its  components.  I  shall 
barely  bestow  upon  it  all  a  general  remark  or 
two.  In  the  run  of  forty  years,  Sir,  under  this 
Constitution,  we  have  experienced  sundry  suc- 
cessive violent  party  contests.  Party  arose,  in- 
deed, with  the  Constitution  itself,  and,  in  some 
form  or  other,  has  attended  it  through  the 
greater  part  of  its  history.  Whether  any  other 
constitution  than  the  old  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion was  desirable,  was  itself  a  question  on 
which  parties  divided  ;  if  a  new  constitution 
127 


Daniel  Webster 

were  framed,  what  powers  should  be  given  to 
it  was  another  question  ;  and  when  it  had  been 
formed,  what  was,  in  fact,  the  just  extent  of  the 
powers  actually  conferred  was  a  third.  Par- 
ties, as  we  know,  existed  under  the  first  admin- 
istration, as  distinctly  marked  as  those  which 
have  manifested  themselves  at  any  subsequent 
period.  The  contest  immediately  preceding 
the  political  change  in  1801,  and  that,  again, 
which  existed  at  the  commencement  of  the  late 
war,  are  other  instances  of  party  excitement,  of 
something  more  than  usual  strength  and  in- 
tensity. In  all  these  conflicts  there  was,  no 
doubt,  much  of  violence  on  both  and  all  sides. 
It  would  be  impossible,  if  one  had  a  fancy  for 
such  employment,  to  adjust  the  relative  quan- 
tum of  violence  between  these  contending  par- 
ties. There  was  enough  in  each,  as  must  al- 
ways be  expected  in  popular  governments. 
With  a  great  deal  of  popular  and  decorous  dis- 
cussion, there  was  mingled  a  great  deal,  also, 
of  declamation,  virulence,  crimination,  and 
abuse.  In  regard  to  any  party,  probably,  at 
one  of  the  leading  epochs  in  the  history  of  par- 
ties, enough  may  be  found  to  make  out  another 
inflamed  exhibition,  not  unlike  that  with  which 
the  honorable  member  has  edified  us.  For  my- 
self, Sir,  I  shall  not  rake  among  the  rubbish  of 
bygone  times,  to  see  what  I  can  find,  or  whether 
I  cannot  find  something  by  which  I  can  fix  a 
blot  on  the 'escutcheon  of  any  State,  any  part}', 
or  any  part  of  the  country.  General  Washing- 
128 


Reply  to  Hayne 

ton's  administration  was  steadily  and  zealously 
maintained,  as  we  all  know,  by  New  England. 
It  was  violently  opposed  elsewhere.  We  know 
in  what  quarter  he  had  the  most  earnest,  con- 
stant, and  persevering  support,  in  all  his  great 
and  leading  measures.  We  know  where  his 
private  and-personal  character  was  held  in  the 
highest  degree  of  attachment  and  veneration  ; 
and  we  know,  too,  where  his  measures  were 
opposed,  his  services  slighted,  and  his  character 
vilified.  We  know,  or  we  might  know,  if  we 
turned  to  the  journals,  who  expressed  respect, 
gratitude,  and  regret,  when  he  retired  from  the 
chief  magistracy,  and  who  refused  to  express 
either  respect,  gratitude,  or  regret.  I  shall  not 
open  those  journals.  Publications  more  abusive 
or  scurrilous  never  saw  the  light,  than  were 
sent  forth  against  Washington,  and  all  his  lead- 
ing measures,  from  presses  south  of  New  Eng- 
land. But  I  shall  not  look  them  up.  I  employ 
no  scavengers,  no  one  is  in  attendance  on  me, 
furnishing  such  means  of  retaliation  ;  and  if 
there  were,  with  an  ass's  load  of  them,  with  a 
bulk  as  huge  as  that  which  the  gentleman  him- 
self has  produced,  I  would  not  touch  one  of 
them.  I  see  enough  of  the  violence  of  our  own 
times,  to  be  no  way  anxious  to  rescue  from  for- 
getfulness  the  extravagances  of  times  past. 

Besides,  what  is  all  this  to  the  present  pur- 
pose?   It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  public 
lands,  in  regard  to  which  the  attack  was  begun  ; 
and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  those  sentiments 
129 


Daniel   Webster 

and  opinions  which,  I  have  thought,  tend  to 
disunion,  and  all  of  which  the  honorable  mem- 
ber seems  to  have  adopted  himself,  and  under- 
taken to  defend.  New  England  has,  at  times, 
so  argues  the  gentleman,  held  opinions  as  dan- 
gerous as  those  which  he  now  holds.  Suppose 
this  were  so  ;  why  should  he  therefore  abuse 
New  England?  If  he  finds  himself  counte- 
nanced by  acts  of  hers,  how  is  it  that,  while  he 
relies  on  these  acts,  he  covers,  or  seeks  to  cover, 
their  authors  with  reproach  ?  But,  Sir,  if,  in 
the  course  of  forty  years,  there  have  bee'n  un- 
due effervescences  of  party  in  New  England, 
has  the  same  thing  happened  nowhere  else  ? 
Party  animosity  and  party  outrage,  not  in  New 
England,  but  elsewhere,  denounced  President 
Washington,  not  only  as  a  Federalist,  but  as  a 
Tory,  a  British  agent,  a  man  who  in  his  high 
office  sanctioned  corruption.  But  does  the  hon- 
orable member  suppose,  if  I  had  a  tender  here 
who  should  put  such  an  effusion  of  wickedness 
and  folly  into  my  hand,  that  I  would  stand  up 
and  read  it  against  the  South  ?  Parties  ran 
into  great  heats  again  in  1799  and  1800.  What 
was  said,  Sir,  or  rather  what  was  not  said,  in 
those  years,  against  John  Adams,  one  of  the 
committee  that  drafted  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, and  its  admitted  ablest  defender  on 
the  floor  of  Congress  ?  If  the  gentleman  wishes 
to  increase  his  stores  of  party  abuse  and  frothy 
violence,  if  he  has  a  determined  proclivity  to 
such  pursuits,  there  are  treasures  of  that  sort 
130 


Reply  to   Hayne 


sonth  of  the  Potomac,  much  to  his  taste,  yet 
untouched.     I  shall  not  touch  them. 

The  parties  which  divided  the  country  at  the 
commencement  of  the  late  war  were  violent. 
But  then  there  was  violence  on  both  sides,  and 
violence  in  every  State.  Minorities  and  majori- 
ties were  equally  violent.  There  was  no  more 
violence  against  the  war  in  New  England,  than 
in  other  States  ;  nor  any  more  appearance  of 
violence,  except  that,  owing  to  a  dense  popula- 
tion, greater  facility  of  assembling,  and  more 
presses,  there  may  have  been  more  in  quantity 
spoken  and  printed  there  than  in  some  other 
places.  In  the  article  of  sermons,  too,  New 
England  is  somewhat  more  abundant  than 
South  Carolina  ;  and  for  that  reason  the  chance 
of  finding  here  and  there  an  exceptionable  one 
may  be  greater.  I  hope,  too,  there  are  more 
good  ones.  Opposition  may  have  been  more 
formidable  in  New  England,  as  it  embraced  a 
larger  portion  of  the  whole  population  ;  but  it 
was  no  more  unrestrained  in  principle,  or  vio- 
lent in  manner.  The  minorities  dealt  quite  as 
harshly  with  their  own  State  governments  as 
the  majorities  dealt  with  the  administration 
here.  There  were  presses  on  both  sides,  popu- 
lar meetings  on  both  sides,  ay,  and  pulpits  on 
both  sides  also.  The  gentleman's  purveyors 
have  only  catered  for  him  among  the  produc- 
tions of  one  side.  I  certainly  shall  not  supply 
the  deficiency  by  furnishing  samples  of  the  other. 
I  leave  to  him,  and  to  them,  the  whole  concern. 


Daniel  Webster 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  that  if,  in  any 
part  of  this  their  grateful  occupation,  if,  in  all 
their  researches,  they  find  any  thing  in  the  his- 
tory of  Massachusetts,  or  New  England,  or  in 
the  proceedings  of  any  legislative  or  other  pub- 
lic body,  disloyal  to  the  Union,  speaking  slight- 
ingly of  its  value,  proposing  to  break  it  up,  or 
recommending  non-intercourse  with  neighbor- 
ing States,  on  account  of  difference  of  political 
opinion,  then,  Sir,  I  give  them  all  up  to  the 
honorable  gentleman's  unrestrained  rebuke  ; 
expecting,  however,  that  he  will  extend  his 
buffetings  in  like  manner  to  all  similar  pro- 
ceedings, wherever  else  found. 

The  gentleman,  Sir,  has  spoken  at  large  of 
former  parties,  now  no  longer  in  being,  by  their 
received  appellations,  and  has  undertaken  to 
instruct  us,  not  only  in  the  knowledge  of  their 
principles,  but  of  their  respective  pedigrees 
also.  He  has  ascended  to  their  origin,  and  run 
out  their  genealogies.  With  most  exemplary 
modesty,  he  speaks  of  the  party  to  which  he 
professes  to  have  himself  belonged,  as  the  true 
Pure,  the  only  honest,  patriotic  party,  derived 
by  regular  descent,  from  father  to  son,  from 
the  time  of  the  virtuous  Romans  !  Spreading 
before  us  the  family  tree  of  political  parties, 
he  takes  especial  care  to  show  himself  snugly 
perched  on  a  popular  bough  !  He  is  wakeful 
to  the  expediency  of  adopting  such  rules  of  de- 
scent as  shall  bring  him  in,  to  the  exclusion  of 
others,  as  an  heir  to  the  inheritance  of  all  pub- 
132 


Reply  to   Hayne 


lie  virtue  and  all  true  political  principle.  His 
party  and  his  opinions  are  sure  to  be  orthodox  ; 
heterodoxy  is  confined  to  his  opponents.  He 
spoke,  Sir,  of  the  Federalists,  and  I  thought  I 
saw  some  eyes  begin  to  open  and  stare  a  little, 
when  he  ventured  on  that  ground.  I  expected 
he  would  draw  his  sketches  rather  lightly,  when 
he  looked  on  the  circle  round  him,  and  espe- 
cially if  he  should  cast  his  thoughts  to  the  high 
places  out  of  the  Senate.  Nevertheless,  he 
went  back  to  Rome,  ad  annum  urbis  conditcz, 
.and  found  the  fathers  of  the  Federalists  in  the 
primeval  aristocrats  of  that  renowned  city  ! 
He  traced  the  flow  of  Federal  blood  down 
through  successive  ages  and  centuries,  till  he 
Thought  it  into  the  veins"  of  the  American 
Tories,  of  whom,  by  the  way,  there  were  twenty 
in  the  Carolinas  for  one  in  Massachusetts. 
From  the  Tories  he  followed  it  to  the  Federal- 
ists ;  and,  as  the  Federal  party  was  broken  up, 
.and  there  was  no  possibility  of  transmitting  it 
further  on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  he  seems  to 
have  discovered  that  it  has  gone  off  collaterally, 
though  against  all  the  canons  of  descent,  into 
the  Ultras  of  France,  and  finally  become  extin- 
guished, like  exploded  gas,  among  the  adher- 
ents of  Don  Miguel  !  This,  Sir,  is  an  abstract 
of  the  gentleman's  history  of  Federalism.  I 
am  not  about  to  controvert  it.  It  is  not,  at  pres- 
ent, worth  the  pains  of  refutation  ;  because, 
Sir,  if  at  this  day  any  one  feels  the  sin  of  Fed- 
eralism lying  heavily  on  his  conscience,  he  can 
133 


Daniel  Webster 

easily  procure  remission.  He  may  even  obtain 
an  indulgence,  if  he  be  desirous  of  repeating  the 
same  transgression.  It  is  an  affair  of  no  diffi- 
culty to  get  into  this  same  right  line  of  patriotic 
descent.  A  man  now-a-days  is  at  liberty  to 
choose  his  political  parentage.  He  may  elect 
his  own  father.  Federalist  or  not,  he  may,  if 
he  choose,  claim  to  belong  to  the  favored  stock, 
and  his  claim  will  be  allowed.  He  may  carry 
back  his  pretensions  just  as  far  as  the  honor- 
able gentleman  himself  ;  nay,  he  may  make 
himself  out  the  honorable  gentleman's  cousin, 
and  prove,  satisfactorily,  that  he  is  descended 
from  the  same  political  great-grandfather.  All 
this  is  allowable.  We  all  know  a  process,  Sir, 
by  which  the  whole  Essex  Junto  could,  in  one 
hour,  be  all  washed  white  from  their  ancient 
Federalism,  and  come  out,  every  one  of  them, 
original  Democrats,  dyed  in  the  wool  !  Some 
of  them  have  actually  undergone  the  operation, 
and  they  say  it  is  quite  easy.  The  only  incon- 
venience it  occasions,  as  they  tell  us,  is  a  slight 
tendency  of  the  blood  to  the  face,  a  soft  suffu- 
sion, which,  however,  is  very  transient,  since 
nothing  is  said  by  those  whom  they  join  calcu- 
lated to  deepen  the  red  on  the  cheek,  but  a 
prudent  silence  is  observed  in  regard  to  all  the 
past.  Indeed,  Sir,  some  smiles  of  approbation 
have  been  bestowed,  and  some  crumbs  of  com- 
fort have  fallen,  not  a  thousand  miles  from  the 
door  of  the  Hartford  Convention  itself.  And  if 
the  author  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  possessed 
134 


Reply  to  Hayne 

the  other  requisite  qualifications,  there  is  no 
knowing,  notwithstanding  his  Federalism,  to 
what  heights  of  favor  he  might  not  yet  attain. 

Mr.  President,  in  carrying  his  warfare,  such 
as  it  is,  into  New  England,  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman all  along  professes  to  be  acting  on  the 
defensive.  He  chooses  to  consider  me  as  hav- 
ing assailed  South  Carolina,  and  insists  that  he 
comes  forth  only  as  her  champion,  and  in  her 
defence.  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  that  I  made  any 
attack  whatever  on  South  Carolina.  Nothing 
like  it.  The  honorable  member,  in  his  first 
speech,  expressed  opinions,  in  regard  to  rev- 
enue and  some  other  topics,  which  T  heard  both 
with  pain  and  with  surprise.  I  told  the  gentle- 
man I  was  aware  that  such  sentiments  were  en- 
tertained out  of  the  government,  but  had  not 
expected  to  find  them  advanced  in  it  ;  that  I 
knew  there  were  persons  in  the  South  who 
speak  of  our  Union  with  indifference  or  doubt, 
taking  pains  to  magnify  its  evils,  and  to  say 
nothing  of  its  benefits  ;  that  the  honorable 
member  himself,  I  was  sure,  could  never  be 
one  of  these  ;  and  I  regretted  the  expression  of 
such  opinions  as  he  had  avowed,  because  I 
thought  their  obvious  tendency  was  to  encour- 
age feelings  of  disrespect  to  the  Union,  and  to 
impair  its  strength.  This,  Sir,  is  the  sum  and 
substance  of  all  I  said  on  the  subject.  And  this 
constitutes  the  attack  which  called  on  the  chiv- 
alry of  the  gentleman,  in  his  own  opinion,  to 
harry  us  with  such  a  foray  among  the  party 
135 


Daniel  Webster 

pamphlets  and  party  proceedings  of  Massachu- 
setts !  If  he  means  that  I  spoke  with  dissatis- 
faction or  disrespect  of  the  ebullitions  of  indi- 
viduals in  South  Carolina,  it  is  true.  But  if  he 
means  that  I  assailed  the  character  of  the  State* 
her  honor,  or  patriotism,  that  I  reflected  on  her 
history  or  her  conduct,  he  has  not  the  slightest 
ground  for  any  such  assumption.  I  did  not 
even  refer,  I  think,  in  my  observations,  to  any 
collection  of  individuals.  I  said  nothing  of  the 
recent  conventions.  I  spoke  in  the  most  guard- 
ed and  careful  manner,  and  only  expressed  my 
regret  for  the  publication  of  opinions,  which  I 
presumed  the  honorable  member  disapproved 
as  much  as  myself.  In  this,  it  seems,  I  was. 
mistaken.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  gentle- 
man has  disclaimed  any  sentiment,  or  any  opin- 
ion, of  a  supposed  anti-union  tendency,  which 
on  all  or  any  of  the  recent  occasions  has  been 
expressed.  The  whole  drift  of  his  speech  has 
been  rather  to  prove,  that,  in  divers  times  and 
manners,  sentiments  equally  liable  to  my  ob- 
jection have  been  avowed  in  New  England. 
And  one  would  suppose  that  his  object,  in  this 
reference  to  Massachusetts,  was  to  find  a  prec- 
edent to  justify  proceedings  in  the  South , 
were  it  not  for  the  reproach  and  contumely 
with  which  he  labors,  all  along,  to  load  these 
his  own  chosen  precedents.  By  way  of  defend- 
ing South  Carolina  from  what  he  chooses  to 
think  an  attack  on  her,  he  first  quotes  the  ex- 
ample of  Massachusetts,  and  then  denounces 
136 


Reply  to  Hayne 

that  example  in  good  set  terms.  This  twofold 
purpose,  not  very  consistent,  one  would  think, 
with  itself,  was  exhibited  more  than  once  in  the 
course  of  his  speech.  He  referred,  for  instance, 
to  the  Hartford  Convention.  Did  he  do  this 
for  authority,  or  for  a  topic  of  reproach  ?  Ap- 
parently for  both,  for  he  told  us  that  he  should 
find  no  fault  with  the  mere  fact  of  holding  such 
a  convention,  and  considering  and  discussing 
such  questions  as  he  supposes  were  then  and 
there  discussed  ;  but  what  rendered  it  obnox- 
ious was  its  being  held  at  the  time,  and  under 
the  circumstances  of  the  country  then  existing* 
We  were  in  a  war,  he  said,  and  the  country 
needed  all  our  aid  ;  the  hand  of  government 
required  to  be  strengthened,  not  weakened  ; 
and  patriotism  should  have  postponed  such  pro- 
ceedings to  another  day.  The  thing  itself, 
then,  is  a  precedent  ;  the  time  and  manner  of 
it  only,  a  subject  of  censure. 

Now,  Sir,  I  go  much  further,  on  this  point, 
than  the  honorable  member.  Supposing,  as 
the  gentleman  seems  to  do,  that  the  Hartford 
Convention  assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as 
breaking  up  the  Union,  because  they  thought 
unconstitutional  laws  had  been  passed,  or  to 
consult  on  that  subject,  or  to  calculate  the 
value  of  the  Union  ;  supposing  this  to  be  their 
purpose,  or  any  part  of  it,  then  I  say  the  meet- 
ing itself  was  disloyal,  and  was  obnoxious  to 
censure,  whether  held  in  time  of  peace  or  time 
of  war,  or  under  whatever  circumstances.  The 
137 


Daniel  Webster 

material  question  is  the  object.  Is  dissolution 
the  object?  If  it  be,  external  circumstances 
may  make  it  a  more  or  less  aggravated  case, 
but  cannot  affect  the  principle.  I  do  not  hold, 
therefore,  Sir,  that  the  Hartford  Convention 
was  pardonable,  even  to  the  extent  of  the  gen- 
tleman's admission,  if  its  objects  were  really 
such  as  have  been  imputed  to  it.  Sir,  there 
never  was  a  time,  under  any  degree  of  excite- 
ment, in  which  the  Hartford  Convention,  or 
any  other  convention,  could  have  maintained 
itself  one  moment  in  New  England,  if  as- 
sembled for  any  such  purpose  as  the  gentleman 
says  would  have  been  -an  allowable  purpose. 
To  hold  conventions  to  decide  constitutional 
law  !  To  try  the  binding  validity  of  statutes 
by  votes  in  a  convention  !  .Sir,  the  Hartford 
Convention,  I  presume,  would  not  desire  that 
the  honorable  gentleman  should  be  their  de- 
fender or  advocate,  if  he  puts  their  case  upon 
such  untenable  and  extravagant  grounds. 

Then,  Sir,  the  gentleman  has  no  fault  to  find 
with  these  recently  promulgated  South  Carolina 
opinions.  And  certainly  he  need  have  none  ; 
for  his  own  sentiments,  as  now  advanced,  and 
advanced  on  reflection,  as  far  as  I  have  been 
able  to  comprehend  them,  go  the  full  length  of 
all  these  opinions.  I  propose,  Sir,  to  say  some- 
thing on  these,  and  to  consider  how  far  they 
are  just  and  constitutional.  Before  doing  that, 
however,  let  me  observe  that  the  eulogium  pro- 
nounced by  the  honorable  gentleman  on  the 
138 


Reply  to  Hayne 

character  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  for 
her  Revolutionary  and  other  merits,  meets  my 
hearty  concurrence.  I  shall  not  acknowledge 
that  the  honorable  member  goes  before  me  in 
regard  for  whatever  of  distinguished  talent,  or 
distinguished  character,  South  Carolina  has 
produced.  I  claim  part  of  the  honor,  I  partake 
in  the  pride,  of  her  great  names.  I  claim  them 
for  countrymen,  one  and  all,  the  Laurenses, 
the  Rutledges,  the  Pinckneys,  the  Sumpters, 
the  Marions,  Americans  all,  whose  fame  is  no 
more  to  be  hemmed  in  by  State  lines,  than 
their  talents  and  patriotism  were  capable  of 
being  circumscribed  within  the  same  narrow 
limits.  In  their  day  and  generation,  they 
served  and  honored  the  country,  and  the  whole 
country  ;  and  their  renown  is  of  the  treasures  of 
the  whole  country.  Him  whose  honored  name 
the  gentleman  himself  bears, — does  he  esteem 
me  less  capable  of  gratitude  for  his  patriotism, 
or  sympathy  for  his  sufferings,  than  if  his  eyes 
had  first  opened  upon  the  light  of  Massachu- 
setts, instead  of  South  Carolina  ?  Sir,  does  he 
suppose  it  in  his  power  to  exhibit  a  Carolina 
name  so  bright,  as  to  produce  envy  in  my 
bosom?  No,  Sir,  increased  gratification  and 
delight,  rather.  I  thank  God,  that,  if  I  am 
gifted  with  little  of  the  spirit  which  is  able  to 
raise  mortals  to  the  skies,  I  have  yet  none,  as  I 
trust,  of  that  other  spirit,  which  would  drag 
angels  down.  When  I  shall  be  found,  Sir,  in 
my  place  here  in  the  Senate,  or  elsewhere,  to 
139 


Daniel   Webster 

sneer  at  public  merit,  because  it  happens  to 
spring  up  beyond  the  little  limits  of  my  own 
State  or  neighborhood  ;  when  I  refuse,  for  any 
such  cause,  or  for  any  cause,  the  homage  due 
to  American  talent,  to  elevated  patriotism,  to 
sincere  devotion  to  liberty  and  the  country  ; 
or,  if  I  see  an  uncommon  endowment  of  Heav- 
en, if  I  see  extraordinary  capacity  and  virtue, 
in  any  son  of  the  South,  and  if,  moved  by  local 
prejudice  or  gangrened  by  State  jealousy,  I  get 
up  here  to  abate  the  tithe  of  a  hair  from  his  just 
character  and  just  fame,  may  my  tongue  cleave 
to  the  roof  of  my  mouth  ! 

Sir,  let  me  recur  to  pleasing  recollections  ; 
let  me  indulge  in  refreshing  remembrance  of 
the  past  ;  let  me  remind  you  that,  in  early 
times,  no  States  cherished  greater  harmony, 
both  of  principle  and  feeling,  than  Massachu- 
setts and  South  Carolina.  Would  to  God  that 
harmony  might  again  return  !  Shoulder  to 
shoulder  they  went  through  the  Revolution, 
hand  in  hand  they  stood  round  the  administra- 
tion of  Washington,  and  felt  his  own  great  arm 
lean  on  them  for  support.  Unkind  feeling,  if 
it  exist,  alienation,  and  distrust  are  the  growth, 
unnatural  to  such  soils,  of  false  principles  since 
sown.  They  are  weeds,  the  seeds  of  which  that 
same  great  arm  never  scattered. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  enter  on  no  encomium 

upon  Massachusetts  ;  she  needs  none.     There 

she  is.     Behold  her,  and  judge  for  yourselves. 

There  is  her  history  ;  the  world  knows  it  by 

140 


Reply  to   Hayne 

heart.  The  past,  at  least,  is  secure.  There  is 
Boston,  and  Concord,  and  Lexington,  and 
Bunker  Hill  ;  and  there  they  will  remain  for 
ever.  The  bones  of  her  sons,  falling  in  the 
great  struggle  for  Independence,  now  lie 
mingled  with  the  soil  of  every  State  from  New 
England  to  Georgia  ;  and  there  they  will  lie 
for  ever.  And,  Sir,  where  American  Liberty 
raised  its  first  voice,  and  where  its  youth  was 
nurtured  and  sustained,  there  it  still  lives,  in 
the  strength  of  its  manhood  and  full  of  its  orig- 
inal spirit.  If  discord  and  disunion  shall  wound 
it,  if  party  strife  and  blind  ambition  shall  hawk 
at  and  tear  it,  if  folly  and  madness,  if  uneasi- 
ness tinder  salutary  and  necessary  restraint, 
shall  succeed  in  separating  it  from  that  Union, 
by  which  alone  its  existence  is  made  sure,  it 
will  stand,  in  the  end,  by  the  side  of  that  cradle 
in  which  its  infancy  was  rocked  ;  it  will  stretch 
forth  its  arm  with  whatever  of  vigor  it  may  still 
retain  over  the  friends  who  gather  round  it ; 
and  it  will  fall  at  last,  if  fall  it  must,  amidst  the 
proudest  monuments  of  its  own  glory,  and  on 
the  very  spot  of  its  origin. 

There  yet  remains  to  be  performed,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, by  far  the  most  grave  and  important  duty, 
which  I  feel  to  be  devolved  on  me  by  this  occa- 
sion. It  is  to  state,  and  to  defend,  what  I  con- 
ceive to  be  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitu- 
tion under  which  we  are  here  assembled.  I 
might  well  have  desired  that  so  weighty  a  task 
141 


Daniel   Webster 

should  have  fallen  into  other  and  abler  hands. 
I  could  have  wished  that  it  should  have  been 
executed  by  those  whose  character  and  experi- 
ence give  weight  and  influence  to  their  opin- 
ions, such  as  cannot  possibly  belong  to  mine. 
But,  Sir,  I  have  met  the  occasion,  not  sought 
it  ;  and  I  shall  proceed  to  state  my  own  senti- 
ments, without  challenging  for  them  any  par- 
ticular regard,  with  studied  plainness,  and  as 
much  precision  as  possible. 

I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  to  maintain,  that  it  is  a  right  of 
the  State  legislatures  to  interfere,  whenever,  in 
their  judgment,  this  government  transcends  its 
constitutional  limits,  and  to  arrest  the  operation 
of  its  laws. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  this  right,  as  a 
right  existing  under  the  Constitution,  not  as  a 
right  to  overthrow  it  on  the  ground  of  extreme 
necessity,  such  as  would  justify  violent  revolu- 
tion. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority, 
on  the  part  of  the  States,  thus  to  interfere,  for 
the  purpose  of  correcting  the  exercise  of  power 
by  the  general  government,  of  checking  it,  and 
of  compelling  it  to  conform  to  their  opinion  of 
the  extent  of  its  powers. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain,  that  the  ulti- 
mate power  of  judging  of  the  constitutional  ex- 
tent of  its  own  authority  is  not  lodged  exclu- 
sively in  the  general  government,  or  any  branch 
of  it ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  States  may 
142 


Reply  to  Hayne 


lawfully  decide  for  themselves,  and  each  State 
for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given  case,  the  act  of 
the  general  government  transcends  its  power. 

I  understand  him  to  insist,  that,  if  the  ex- 
igency of  the  case,  in  the  opinion  of  any  State 
government,  require  it,  such  State  government 
may,  by  its  own  sovereign  authority,  annul  an 
act  of  the  general  government  which  it  deems 
plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional. 

This  is  the  sum  of  what  I  understand  from 
him  to  be  the  South  Carolina  doctrine,  and  the 
doctrine  which  he  maintains.  I  propose  to  con- 
sider it,  and  compare  it  with  the  Constitution. 
Allow  me  to  say,  as  a  preliminary  remark,  that 
I  call  this  the  South  Carolina  doctrine  only  be- 
cause the  gentleman  himself  has  so  denomi- 
nated it.  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  say  that 
South  Carolina,  as  a  State,  has  ever  advanced 
these  sentiments.  I  hope  she  has  not,  and 
never  may.  That  a  great  majority  of  her  peo- 
ple are  opposed  to  the  tariff  laws,  is  doubtless 
true.  That  a  majority,  somewhat  less  than 
that  just  mentioned,  conscientiously  believe 
these  laws  unconstitutional,  may  probably  also 
be  true.  But  that  any  majority  holds  to  the 
right  of  direct  State  interference  at  State  dis- 
cretion, the  right  of  nullifying  acts  of  Congress 
by  acts  of  State  legislation,  is  more  than  I 
know,  and  what  I  shall  be  slow  to  believe. 

That  there  are  individuals  besides  the  honor- 
able gentleman  who  do  maintain  these  opin- 
ions, is  quite  certain.  I  recollect  the  recent  ex- 
143 


Daniel   Webster 

pression  of  a  sentiment,  which  circumstances 
attending  its  utterance  and  publication  justify 
us  in  supposing  was  not  unpremeditated. 
"  The  sovereignty  of  the  State, — never  to  be 
controlled,  construed,  or  decided  on,  but  by 
her  own  feelings  of  honorable  justice." 

Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said,  that,  for  the  purpose 
of  being  clearly  understood,  he  would  state  that  his 
proposition  was  in  the  words  of  the  Virginia  resolu- 
tion, as  follows : — 

"  That  this  assembly  doth  explicitly  and  peremp- 
torily declare,  that  it  views  the  powers  of  the  federal 
government,  as  resulting  from  the  compact  to  which 
the  States  are  parties,  as  limited  by  the  plain  sense 
and  intention  of  the  instrument  constituting  that  com- 
pact, as  no  farther  valid  than  they  are  authorized  by 
.  the  grants  enumerated  in  that  compact ;  and  that,  in 
case  of  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise 
of  other  powers,  not  granted  by  the  said  compact,  the 
States  who  are  parties  thereto  have  the  right,  and  are 
in  duty  bound,  to  interpose,  for  arresting  the  progress 
of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining  within  their  respective 
limits  the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  appertain- 
ing to  them." 

Mr.  Webster  resumed  :— 

I  am  quite  aware,  Mr.  President,  of  the  ex- 
istence of  the  resolution  which  the  gentleman 
read,  and  has  now  repeated;  and  that  he  relies 
on  it  as  his  authority.  I  know  the  source,  too, 
from  which  it  is  understood  to  have  proceeded. 
I  need  not  say  that  I  have  much  respect  for  the 
constitutional  opinions  of  Mr.  Madison  ;  they 
would  weigh  greatly  with  me  always.  But  be- 
fore the  authority  of  his  opinion  he  vouched  for 
the  gentleman's  proposition,  it  will  be  proper 
144 


Reply  to   Hayne 


to  consider  what  is  the  fair  interpretation  of 
that  resolution,  to  which  Mr.  Madison  is  under- 
stood to  have  given  his  sanction.  As  the  gen- 
tleman construes  it,  it  is  an  authority  for  him. 
Possibly,  he  may  not  have  adopted  the  right 
construction.  That  resolution  declares,  that,  in 
the  case  of  the  dangerous  exercise  of  powers 
not  granted  by  the  general  government,  the 
States  may  interpose  to  arrest  the  progress 
of  the  evil.  But  how  interpose,  and  what  does 
this  declaration  purport  ?  Does  it  mean  no 
more  than  that  there  may  be  extreme  cases,  in 
which  the  people,  in  any  mode  of  assembling, 
may  resist  usurpation,  and  relieve  themselves 
from  a  tyrannical  government  ?  No  one  will 
deny  this.  Such  resistance  is  not  only  acknowl- 
edged to  be  just  in  America,  but  in  England 
also  Blackstone  admits  as  much,  in  the  theory, 
and  practice,  too,  of  the  English  constitution. 
We,  Sir,  who  oppose  the  Carolina  doctrine,  do 
not  deny  that  the  people  may,  if  they  choose, 
throw  off  any  government  when  it  becomes  op- 
pressive and  intolerable,  and  erect  a  better  in 
its  stead.  We  all  know  that  civil  institutions 
are  established  for  the  public  benefit,  and  that 
when  they  cease  to  answer  the  ends  of  their  ex- 
istence they  may  be  changed.  But  I  do  not 
understand  the  doctrine  now  contended  for  to 
be  that,  which,  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  we 
may  call  the  right  of  revolution.  I  understand 
the  gentleman  to  maintain,  that,  without  revo- 
lution, without  civil  commotion,  without  rebel- 
145 


Daniel   Webster 

lion,  a  remedy  for  supposed  abuse  and  trans- 
gression of  the  powers  of  the  general  govern- 
ment lies  in  a  direct  appeal  to  the  interference 
of  the  State  governments. 

Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said  :  He  did  not  contend 
for  the  mere  right  of  revolution,  but  for  the  right  of 
constitutional  resistance.  What  he  maintained  was, 
that  in  case  of  a  plain,  palpable  violation  of  the  Con-" 
stitution  by  the  general  government,  a  State  may 
interpose  ;  and  that  this  interposition  is  constitutional. 

Mr.  Webster  resumed  : — 

So,  Sir,  I  understood  the  gentleman,  and  am 
happy  to  find  that  I  did  not  misunderstand  him. 
"What  he  contends  for  is,  that  it  is  constitutional 
to  interrupt  the  administration  of  the  Constitu- 
tion itself,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are  chosen 
and  sworn  to  administer  it,  by  the  direct  inter- 
ference, in  form  of  law,  of  the  States,  in  virtue 
of  their  sovereign  capacity.  The  inherent  right 
in  the  people  to  reform  their  government  1  do 
not  deny  ;  and  they  have  another  right,  and 
that  is,  to  resist  unconstitutional  laws,  without 
overturning  the  government.  It  is  no  doctrine 
of  mine  that  unconstitutional  laws  bind  the 
people.  The  great  question  is,  Whose  preroga- 
tive is  it  to  decide  on  the  constitutionality  or 
unconstitutional! ty  of  the  laws  ?  On  that,  the 
main  debate  hinges.  The  proposition,  that,  in 
case  of  a  supposed  violation  of  the  Constitution 
by  Congress,  the  States  have  a  constitutional 
right  to  interfere  and  annul  the  law  of  Con- 
gress, is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman.  I 
do  not  admit  it.  If  the  gentleman  had  intended 
146 


Reply  to   Hayne 

no  more  than  to  assert  the  right  of  revolution 
for  justifiable  cause,  he  would  have  said  only 
what  all  agree  to.  But  I  cannot  conceive  that 
there  can  be  a  middle  course,  between  submis- 
sion to  the  laws,  when  regularly  pronounced 
constitutional,  on  the  one  hand,  and  open  re- 
sistance, which  is  revolution  or  rebellion,  on 
the  other.  I  say,  the  right  of  a  State  to  annul 
a  law  of  Congress  cannot  be  maintained,  but 
on  the  ground  of  the  inalienable  right  of  man 
to  resist  oppression  ;  that  is  to  say,  upon  the 
ground  of  revolution.  I  admit  that  there  is  an 
ultimate  violent  remedy,  above  the  Constitution 
and  in  defiance  of  the  Constitution,  which  may 
be  resorted  to  when  a  revolution  is  to  be  justi- 
fied. But  I  do  not  admit,  that,  under  the  Con- 
stitution and  in  conformity  with  it,  there  is  any 
mode  in  which  a  State  government,  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Union,  can  interfere  and  stop  the 
progress  of  the  general  government,  by  force 
of  her  own  laws,  under  any  circumstances 
whatever. 

This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this 
government  and  the  source  of  its  power. 
Whose  agent  is  it?  Is  it  the  creature  of  the 
State  legislatures,  or  the  creature  of  the  peo- 
ple ?  If  the  government  of  the  United  States 
be  the  agent  of  the  State  governments,  then 
they  may  control  it,  provided  they  can  agree  in 
the  manner  of  controlling  it ;  if  it  be  the  agent 
of  the  people,  then  the  people  alone  can  control 
it,  restrain  it,  modify,  or  reform  it.  It  is  ob- 
M7 


Daniel   Webster 

servable  enough,  that  the  doctrine  for  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  contends  leads  him  to 
the  necessity  of  maintaining,  not  only  that  this 
general  government  is  the  creature  of  the 
States,  but  that  it  is  the  creature  of  each  of  the 
States  severally,  so  that  each  may  assert  the 
power  for  itself  of  determining  whether  it  acts 
within  the  limits  of  its  authority.  It  is  the  ser- 
vant of  four-and-twenty  masters,  of  different 
\vills  and  different  purposes,  and  yet  bound  to 
obey  all.  This  absurdity  (for  it  seems  no  less) 
arises  from  a  misconception  as  to  the  origin  of 
this  government  and  its  true  character.  It  is, 
Sir,  the  people's  Constitution,  the  people's  gov- 
ernment, made  for  the  people,  made  by  the  peo- 
ple, and  answerable  to  the  people.  The  people  of 
the  United  States  have  declared  that  this  Con- 
stitution shall  be  the  supreme  law.  We  must 
either  admit  the  proposition,  or  dispute  their 
authority.  The  States  are,  unquestionably, 
sovereign,  so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not 
affected  by  this  supreme  law.  But  the  State 
legislatures,  as  political  bodies,  however  sover- 
eign, are  yet  not  sovereign  over  the  people. 
So  far  as  the  people  have  given  power  to  the 
general  government,  so  far  the  grant  is  un- 
questionably good,  and  the  government  holds 
of  the  people,  and  not  of  the  State  govern- 
ments. We  are  all  agents  of  the  same  supreme 
power,  the  people.  The  general  government 
and  the  State  governments  derive  their  author- 
ity from  the  same  source.  Neither  can,  in  rela- 


Reply  to   Hayne 

tion  to  the  other,  be  called  primary,  though  one 
is  definite  and  restricted,  and  the  other  general 
and  residuary.  The  national  government  pos- 
sesses those  powers  which  it  can  be  shown  the 
people  have  conferred  on  it,  and  no  more.  All 
the  rest  belongs  to  the  State  governments,  or 
to  the  people  themselves.  So  far  as  the  people 
have  restrained  State  sovereignty,  by  the  ex- 
pression of  their  will,  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  so  far,  it  must  be  admitted, 
State  sovereignty  is  effectually  controlled.  I 
do  not  contend  that  it  is,  or  ought  to  be,  con- 
trolled farther.  The  sentiment  to  which  I  have 
referred  propounds  that  State  sovereignty  is 
only  to  be  controlled  by  its  own  "feeling  of 
justice"  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  not  to  be  controlled 
at  all,  for  one  who  is  to  follow  his  own  feelings 
is  under  no  legal  control.  Now,  however  men 
may  think  this  ought  to  be,  the  fact  is,  that  the 
people  of  the  United  States  have  chosen  to  im- 
pose control  on  State  sovereignties.  There  are 
those,  doubtless,  who  wish  they  had  been  left 
without  restraint ;  but  the  Constitution  has  or- 
dered the  matter  differently.  To  make  war, 
for  instance,  is  an  exercise  of  sovereignty  ;  but 
the  Constitution  declares  that  no  State  shall 
make  war.  To  coin  money  is  another  exercise 
of  sovereign  power  ;  but  no  State  is  at  liberty 
to  coin  money.  Again,  the  Constitution  says 
that  no  sovereign  State  shall  be  so  sovereign 
as  to  make  a  treaty.  These  prohibitions,  it 
must  be  confessed,  are  a  control  on  the  State 
149 


Daniel   Webster 

sovereignty  of  South  Carolina,  as  well  as  of  the 
other  States,  which  does  not  arise  "  from  her 
own  feelings  of  honorable  justice. ' '  The  opin- 
ion referred  to,  therefore,  is  in  defiance  of  the 
plainest  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 

There  are  other  proceedings  of  public  bodies 
which  have  already  been  alluded  to,  and  to 
which  I  refer  again,  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining more  fully  what  is  the  length  and 
breadth  of  that  doctrine,  denominated  the  Caro- 
lina doctrine,  which  the  honorable  member  has 
now  stood  up  on  this  floor  to  maintain.  In  one 
of  them  I  find  it  resolved,  that  "  the  tariff  of 
1828,  and  every  other  tariff  designed  to  promote 
one  branch  of  industry  at  the  expense  of  others, 
is  contrary  to  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the 
federal  compact ;  and  such  a  dangerous,  palpa- 
ble, and  deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  by  a 
determined  majority,  wielding  the  general  gov- 
ernment beyond  the  limits  of  its  delegated 
powers,  as  calls  upon  the  States  which  compose 
the  suffering  minority,  in  their  sovereign  capac- 
ity, to  exercise  the  powers  which,  as  sovereigns, 
necessarily  devolve  upon  them,  when  their  com- 
pact is  violated." 

Observe,  Sir,  that  this  resolution  holds  the 
tariff  of  1828,  and  every  other  tariff  designed  to 
promote  one  branch  of  industry  at  the  expense 
of  another,  to  be  such  a  dangerous,  palpable, 
and  deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  as  calls 
upon  the  States,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  to 
interfere  by  their  own  authority.  This  denun- 
150 


Reply  to   Hayne 

elation,  Mr.  President,  you  will  please  to  ob- 
serve, includes  our  old  tariff  of  1816,  as  well  as 
all  others  ;  because  that  was  established  to  pro- 
mote the  interest  of  the  manufacturers  of  cot- 
ton, to  the  manifest  and  admitted  injury  of  the 
Calcutta  cotton  trade.  Observe,  again,  that  all 
the  qualifications  are  here  rehearsed  and 
charged  upon  the  tariff,  which  are  necessary  to 
bring  the  case  within  the  gentleman's  proposi- 
tion. The  tariff  is  a  usurpation  ;  it  is  a  danger- 
ous usurpation  ;  it  is  a  palpable  usurpation  ;  it 
is  a  deliberate  usurpation.  It  is  such  a  usurpa- 
tion, therefore,  as- calls  upon  the  States  to  exer- 
cise their  right  of  interference.  Here  is  a  case, 
then,  within  the  gentleman's  principles,  and  all 
his  qualifications  of  his  principles.  It  is  a  case 
for  action.  The  Constitution  is  plainly,  dan- 
gerously, palpably,  and  deliberately  violated  ; 
and  the  States  must  interpose  their  own  au- 
thority to  arrest  the  law.  Let  us  suppose  the 
State  of  South  Carolina  to  express  this  same 
opinion,  by  the  voice  of  her  legislature.  That 
would  be  very  imposing  ;  but  what  then  ?  Is 
the  voice  of  one  State  conclusive  ?  It  so  hap- 
pens that,  at  the  very  moment  when  South 
Carolina  resolves  that  the  tariff  laws  are  uncon- 
stitutional, Pennsylvania  and  Kentucky  resolve 
exactly  the  reverse.  They  hold  those  laws  to 
be  both  highly  proper  and  strictly  constitu- 
tional. And  now,  Sir,  how  does  the  honorable 
member  propose  to  deal  with  this  case  ?  How 
does  he  relieve  us  from  this  difficulty,  upon  any 


Daniel  Webster 

principle  of  his  ?  His  construction  gets  us  into 
it  ;  how  does  he  propose  to  get  us  out  ? 

In  Carolina,  the  tariff  is  a  palpable,  deliberate 
usurpation  ;  Carolina,  therefore,  may  nullify 
it,  and  refuse  to  pay  the  duties.  In  Pennsyl- 
vania, it  is  both  clearly  constitutional  and 
highly  expedient  ;  and  there  the  duties  are  to 
be  paid.  And  yet  we  live  under  a  govern- 
ment of  uniform  laws,  and  under  a  Constitution 
too,  which  contains  an  express  provision,  as  it 
happens,  that  all  duties  shall  be  equal  in  all  the 
States.  Does  not  this  approach  absurdity  ? 

If  there  be  no  power  to  settle  such  questions, 
independent  of  either  of  the  States,  is  not  the 
whole  Union  a  rope  of  sand  ?  Are  we  not 
thrown  back  again,  precisely,  upon  the  old 
Confederation  ? 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Four-and-twenty 
interpreters  of  constitutional  law,  each  with  a 
power  to  decide  for  itself,  and  none  with  au- 
thority to  bind  any  body  else,  and  this  constitu- 
tional law  the  only  bond  of  their  union  !  What 
is  such  a  state  of  things  but  a  mere  connection 
during  pleasure,  or,  to  use  the  phraseology  of 
the  times,  during  feeling  ?  And  that  feeling, 
too,  not  the  feeling  of  the  people,  who  estab- 
lished the  Constitution,  but  the  feeling  of  the 
State  governments. 

In  another  of  the  South  Carolina  addresses, 
having  premised  that  the  crisis  requires  "  all 
the  concentrated  energy  of  passion,"  an  atti- 
tude of  open  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  Union 
152 


Reply  to  Hayne 

is  advised.  Open  resistance  to  the  laws,  then,, 
is  the  constitutional  remedy,  the  conservative 
power  of  the  State,  which  the  South  Carolina 
doctrines  teach  for  the  redress  of  political  evils, 
real  or  imaginary.  And  its  authors  further 
say,  that,  appealing  with  confidence  to  the  Con- 
stitution itself,  to  justify  their  opinions,  they 
cannot  consent  to  try  their  accuracy  by  the 
courts  of  justice.  In  one  sense,  indeed,  Sir, 
this  is  assuming  an  attitude  of  open  resistance 
in  favor  of  liberty.  But  what  sort  of  liberty  ? 
The  liberty  of  establishing  their  own  opinions, 
in  defiance  of  the  opinions  of  all  others  ;  the 
liberty  of  judging  and  of  deciding  exclusively 
themselves,  in  a  matter  in  which  others  have 
as  much  right  to  judge  and  decide  as  they  ;  the 
liberty  of  placing  their  own  opinions  above  the 
judgment  of  all  others,  above  the  laws,  and 
above  the  Constitution.  This  is  their  liberty, 
and  this  is  the  fair  result  of  the  proposition  con- 
tended for  by  the  honorable  gentleman.  Or, 
it  may  be  more  properly  said,  it  is  identical 
with  it,  rather  than  a  result  from  it. 

In  the  same  publication  we  find  the  follow- 
ing : — "  Previously  to  our  Revolution,  when  the 
arm  of  oppression  was  stretched  over  New  Eng- 
land, where  did  our  Northern  brethren  meet 
with  a  braver  sympathy  than  that  which  sprung 
from  the  bosoms  of  Carolinians  ?  We  had  no- 
extortion,  no  oppression,  no  collision  with  the 
king's  ministers,  no  navigation  interests  spring- 
ing up,  in  envious  rivalry  of  England." 
153 


Daniel   Webster 

This  seems  extraordinary  language.  South 
Carolina  no  collision  with  the  king's  ministers 
in  1775  !  No  extortion!  No  oppression  !  But, 
Sir,  it  is  also  more  significant  language.  Does 
any  man  doubt  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
penned  ?  Can  any  one  fail  to  see  that  it  was 
designed  to  raise  in  the  reader's  mind  the  ques- 
tion, whether,  at  this  time, — that  is  to  say,  in 
1828,— South  Carolina  has  any  collision  with  the 
king's  ministers,  any  oppression,  or  extortion, 
to  fear  from  England  ?  whether,  in  short,  Eng- 
land is  not  as  naturally  the  friend  of  South 
Carolina  as  New  England,  with  her  navigation 
interests  springing  up  in  envious  rivalry  of 
England  ? 

Is  it  not  strange,  Sir,  that  an  intelligent  man 
in  South  Carolina,  in  1828,  should  thus  labor  to 
prove  that,  in  1775,  there  was  no  hostility,  no 
cause  of  war,  between  South  Carolina  and  Eng- 
land? That  she  had  no  occasion,  in  reference 
to  her  own  interest,  or  from  a  regard  to  her 
own  welfare,  to  take  up  arms  in  the  Revolution- 
ary contest  ?  Can  any  one  account  for  the  ex- 
pression of  such  strange  sentiments,  and  their 
circulation  through  the  State,  otherwise  than 
by  supposing  the  object  to  be  what  I  have  al- 
ready intimated,  to  raise  the  question,  if  they 
had  no  "  collision"  (mark  the  expression)  with 
the  ministers  of  King  George  the  Third,  in  1775, 
what  collision  have  they,  in  1828,  with  the  min- 
isters of  King  George  the  Fourth?  What  is 
there  now  in  the  existing  state  of  things,  to 
154 


Reply  to  Hayne 

separate  Carolina  from  Old,  more,  or  rather, 
than  from  New  England  ? 

Resolutions,  Sir,  have  been  recently  passed 
by  the  legislature  of  South  Carolina.  I  need 
not  refer  to  them  ;  they  go  no  farther  than  the 
honorable  gentleman  himself  has  gone,  and  I 
hope  not  so  far.  I  content  myself,  therefore, 
with  debating  the  matter  with  him. 

And  now,  Sir,  what  I  have  first  to  say  on  this 
subject  is,  that  at  no  time,  and  under  no  cir- 
cumstances, has  New  England,  or  any  State  in 
New  England,  or  any  respectable  body  of  per- 
sons in  New  England,  or  any  public  man  of 
standing  in  New  England,  put  forth  such  a 
doctrine  as  this  Carolina  doctrine. 

The  gentleman  has  found  no  case,  he  can 
find  none,  to  support  his  own  opinions  by  New 
England  authority.  New  England  has  studied 
the  Constitution  in  other  schools,  and  under 
other  teachers.  She  looks  upon  it  with  other 
regards,  and  deems  more  highly  and  reverently 
both  of  its  just  authority  and  its  utility  and  ex- 
cellence. The  history  of  her  legislative  pro- 
ceedings may  be  traced.  The  ephemeral  effu- 
sions of  temporary  bodies,  called  together  by 
the  excitement  of  the  occasion,  may  be  hunted 
up  ;  they  have  been  hunted  up.  The  opinions 
and  votes  of  her  public  men,  in  and  out  of  Con- 
gress, may  be  explored.  It  will  all  be  in  vain. 
The  Carolina  doctrine  can  derive  from  her 
neither  countenance  nor  support.  She  rejects 
it  now  ;  she  always  did  reject  it ;  and  till  she 
155 


Daniel   Webster 

loses  her  senses,  she  always  will  reject  it.  The 
honorable  member  has  referred  to  expressions 
on  the  subject  of  the  embargo  law,  made  in  this 
place,  by  an  honorable  and  venerable  gentle- 
man, now  favoring  us  with  his  presence.  He 
quotes  that  distinguished  Senator  as  saying, 
that,  in  his  judgment,  the  embargo  law  was 
unconstitutional,  and  that  therefore,  in  his 
opinion,  the  people  were  not  bound  to  obey  it. 
That,  Sir,  is  perfectly  constitutional  language. 
An  unconstitutional  law  is  not  binding  ;  but 
then  it  does  not  rest  'with  a  resolution  or  a 
law  of  a  State  legislature  to  decide  'whether 
an  act  of  Congress  be  or  be  not  constitutional. 
An  unconstitutional  act  of  Congress  would  not 
bind  the  people  of  this  District,  although  they 
have  no  legislature  to  interfere  in  their  behalf  ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  constitutional  law  of 
Congress  does  bind  the  citizens  of  every  State, 
although  all  their  legislatures  should  undertake 
to  annul  it  by  act  or  resolution.  The  venerable 
Connecticut  Senator  is  a  constitutional  lawyer, 
of  sound  principles  and  enlarged  knowledge  ;  a 
statesman  practised  and  experienced,  bred  in 
the  company  of  Washington,  and  holding  just 
views  upon  the  nature  of  our  governments. 
He  believed  the  embargo  unconstitutional,  and 
so  did  others  ;  but  what  then  ?  Who  did  he 
suppose  was  to  decide  that  question  ?  The 
State  legislatures  ?  Certainly  not.  No  such 
sentiment  ever  escaped  his  lips. 

Let  us  follow  up,  Sir,  this  New  England  op- 
156 


Reply  to   Hayne 

position  to  the  embargo  laws  ;  let  us  trace  it, 
till  we  discern  the  principle  which  controlled 
and  governed  New  England  throughout  the- 
whole  course  of  that  opposition.  We  shall  then 
see  what  similarity  there  is  between  the  New 
England  school  of  constitutional  opinions,  and 
this  modern  Carolina  school.  The  gentleman, 
I  think,  read  a  petition  from  some  single  indi- 
vidual addressed  to  the  legislature  of  Massa- 
chusetts, asserting  the  Carolina  doctrine  ;  that 
is,  the  right  of  State  interference  to  arrest  the 
laws  of  the  Union.  The  fate  of  that  petition 
shows  the  sentiment  of  the  legislature.  It  met 
no  favor.  The  opinions  of  Massachusetts  were 
very  different.  They  had  been  expressed  in 
1798,  in  answer  to  the  resolutions  of  Virginia, 
and  she  did  not  depart  from  them,  nor  bend 
them  to  the  times.  Misgoverned,  wronged,  op- 
pressed, as  she  felt  herself  to  be,  she  still  held 
fast  her  integrity  to  the  Union.  The  gentle- 
man may  find  in  her  proceedings  much  evi- 
dence of  dissatisfaction  with  the  measures  of 
government,  and  great  and  deep  dislike  to  the 
embargo  ;  all  this  makes  the  case  so  much  the 
stronger  for  her  ;  for,  notwithstanding  all  this 
dissatisfaction  and  dislike,  she  still  claimed  no 
right  to  sever  the  bonds  of  the  Union.  There 
was  heat,  and  there  was  anger  in  her  political 
feeling.  Be  it  so  ;  but  neither  her  heat  nor  her 
anger  betrayed  her  into  infidelity  to  the  govern- 
ment. The  gentleman  labors  to  prove  that  she 
disliked  the  embargo  as  much  as  South  Caro- 
157 


Daniel   Webster 

lina  dislikes  the  tariff,  and  expressed  her  dislike 
as  strongly.  Be  it  so  ;  but  did  she  propose  the 
Carolina  remedy?  did  she  threaten  to  interfere, 
by  State  authority,  to  annul  the  laws  of  the 
Union  ?  That  is  the  question  for  the  gentle- 
man's consideration. 

No  doubt,  Sir,  a  great  majority  of  the  people 
of  New  England  conscientiously  believed  the 
embargo  law  of  1807  unconstitutional  ;  as  con- 
scientiously, certainly,  as  the  people  of  South 
Carolina  hold  that  opinion  of  the  tariff.  They 
reasoned  thus  :  Congress  has  power  to  regulate 
commerce  ;  but  here  is  a  law,  they  said,  stop- 
ping all  commerce,  and  stopping  it  indefinitely. 
The  law  is  perpetual  ;  that  is,  it  is  not  limited 
in  point  of  time,  and  must  of  course  continue 
until  it  shall  be  repealed  by  some  other  law. 
It  is  as  perpetual,  therefore,  as  the  law  against 
treason  or  murder.  Now,  is  this  regulating 
commerce,  or  destroying  it  ?  Is  it  guiding, 
controlling,  giving  the  rule  to  commerce,  as  a 
subsisting  thing,  or  is  it  putting  an  end  to  it 
altogether  ?  Nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that 
a  majority  in  New  England  deemed  this  law  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution.  The  very  case 
required  by  the  gentleman  to  justify  State  inter- 
ference had  then  arisen.  Massachusetts  be- 
lieved this  law  to  be  "a  deliberate,  palpable, 
and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted 
by  the  Constitution."  Deliberate  it  was,  for  it 
was  long  continued  ;  palpable  she  thought  it, 
as  no  words  in  the  Constitution  gave  the  power, 
158 


Reply  to  Hayne 

and  only  a  construction,  in  her  opinion  most 
violent,  raised  it  ;  dangerous  it  was,  since  it 
threatened  utter  ruin  to  her  most  important  in- 
terests. Here,  then,  was  a  Carolina  case.  How 
did  Massachusetts  deal  with  it  ?  It  was,  as  she 
thought,  a  plain,  manifest,  palpable  violation 
of  the  Constitution,  and  it  brought  ruin  to  her 
doors.  Thousands  of  families,  and  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  individuals,  were  beggared  by 
it.  While  she  saw  and  felt  all  this,  she  saw  and 
felt  also,  that,  as  a  measure  of  national  policy, 
it  was  perfectly  futile  ;  that  the  country  was  no 
way  benefited  by  that  which  caused  so  much 
individual  distress  ;  that  it  was  efficient  only 
for  the  production  of  evil,  and  all  that  evil  in- 
flicted on  ourselves.  In  such  a  case,  under 
such  circumstances,  how  did  Massachusetts  de- 
mean herself  ?  Sir,  she  remonstrated,  she 
memorialized,  she  addressed  herself  to  the  gen- 
eral government,  not  exactly  "  with  the  con- 
centrated energy  of  passion,"  but  with  her  own 
strong  sense,  and  the  energy  of  sober  convic- 
tion. But  she  did  not  interpose  the  arm  of  her 
own  power  to  arrest  the  law,  and  break  the  em- 
bargo. Far  from  it.  Her  principles  bound  her 
to  two  things  ;  and  she  followed  her  principles, 
lead  where  they  might.  First,  to  submit  to 
every  constitutional  law  of  Congress,  and  sec- 
ondly, if  the  constitutional  validity  of  the  law 
be  doubted,  to  refer  that  question  to  the  de- 
cision of  the  proper  tribunals.  The  first  princi- 
ple is  vain  and  ineffectual  without  the  second. 
159 


Daniel  Webster 

A  majority  of  us  in  New  England  believed  the 
embargo  law  unconstitutional  ;  but  the  great 
question  was,  and  always  will  be  in  such  cases, 
Who  is  to  decide  this?  Who  is  to  judge  be- 
tween the  people  and  the  government  ?  And, 
Sir,  it  is  quite  plain,  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  confers  on  the  government 
itself,  to  be  exercised  by  its  appropriate  depart- 
ment, and  under  its  own  responsibility  to  the 
people,  this  power  of  deciding  ultimately  and 
conclusively  upon  the  just  extent  of  its  own 
authority.  If  this  had  not  been  done,  we  should 
not  have  advanced  a  single  step  beyond  the  old 
Confederation. 

Being  fully  of  opinion  that  the  embargo  law 
was  unconstitutional,  the  people  of  New  Eng- 
land were  yet  equally  clear  in  the  opinion,  (it 
was  a  matter  they  did  doubt  upon,)  that  the 
question,  after  all,  must  be  decided  by  the 
judicial  tribunals  of  the  United  States.  Before 
those  tribunals,  therefore,  they  brought  the 
question.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  law, 
they  had  given  bonds  to  millions  in  amount, 
and  which  were  alleged  to  be  forfeited.  They 
suffered  the  bonds  to  be  sued,  and  thus  raised 
the  question.  In  the  old-fashioned  way  of  set- 
tling disputes,  they  went  to  law.  The  case 
came  to  hearing,  and  solemn  argument  ;  and  he 
who  espoused  their  cause,  and  stood  up  for  them 
against  the  validity  of  the  embargo  act,  was 
none  other  than  that  great  man,  of  whom  the 
gentleman  has  made  honorable  mention,  Sam- 
160 


Reply  to  Hayne 

uel  Dexter.  He  was  then,  Sir,  in  the  fulness 
of  his  knowledge,  and  the  maturity  of  his 
strength.  He  had  retired  from  long  and  dis- 
tinguished public  service  here,  to  the  renewed 
pursuit  of  professional  duties,  carrying  with 
him  all  that  enlargement  and  expansion,  all  the 
new  strength  and  force,  which  an  acquaintance 
with  the  more  general  subjects  discussed  in  the 
national  councils  is  capable  of  adding  to  pro- 
fessional attainment,  in  a  mind  of  true  great- 
ness and  comprehension.  He  was  a  lawyer, 
and  he  was  also  a  statesman.  He  had  studied 
the  Constitution,  when  he  filled  public  station, 
that  he  might  defend  it  ;  he  had  examined  its 
principles  that  he  might  maintain  them.  More 
than  all  men,  or  at  least  as  much  as  any  man, 
he  was  attached  to  the  general  government  and 
to  the  union  of  the  States.  His  feelings  and 
opinions  all  ran  in  that  direction.  A  question 
of  constitutional  law,  too,  was,  of  all  subjects, 
that  one  which  was  best  suited  to  his  talents 
and  learning.  Aloof  from  technicality,  and 
unfettered  by  artificial  rule,  such  a  question 
gave  opportunity  for  that  deep  and  clear 
analysis,  that  mighty  grasp  of  principle,  which 
so  much  distinguished  his  higher  efforts. 
His  very  statement  was  argument  ;  his  infer- 
ence seemed  demonstration.  The  earnestness 
of  his  own  conviction  wrought  conviction  in 
others.  One  was  convinced,  and  believed, 
and  assented,  because  it  was  gratifying, 
delightful,  to  think,  and  feel,  and  believe  in 
161 


Daniel  Webster 

unison  with  an  intellect  of  such  evident  superi- 
ority. 

Mr.  Dexter,  Sir,  such  as  I  have  described 
him,  argued  the  New  England  cause.  He  put 
into  his  effort  his  whole  heart,  as  well  as  all  the 
powers  of  his  understanding  ;  for  he  had 
avowed,  in  the  most  public  manner,  his  entire 
concurrence  with  his  neighbors  on  the  point  in 
dispute.  He  argued  the  cause  ;  it  was  lost,  and 
New  England  submitted.  The  established 
tribunals  pronounced  the  law  constitutional, 
and  New  England  acquiesced.  Now,  Sir,  is 
not  this  the  exact  opposite  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  ?  Accord- 
ing to  him,  instead  of  referring  to  the  judicial 
tribunals,  we  should  have  broken  up  the  em- 
bargo by  laws  of  our  own  ;  we  should  have  re- 
pealed it,  quoad  New  England  ;  for  we  had  a 
strong,  palpable,  and  oppressive  case.  Sir,  we 
believed  the  embargo  unconstitutional  ;  but 
still  that  was  matter  of  opinion,  and  who  was 
to  decide  it  ?  We  thought  it  a  clear  case  ;  but, 
nevertheless,  we  did  not  take  the  law  into  our 
own  hands,  because  we  did  not  wish  to  bring 
about  a  revolution ,  nor  to  break  up  the  Union  ; 
for  I  maintain,  that  between  submission  to  the 
decision  of  the  constituted  tribunals,  and  revo- 
lution, or  disunion,  there  is  no  middle  ground  ; 
there  is  no  ambiguous  condition,  half  allegiance 
and  half  rebellion.  And,  Sir,  how  futile,  how 
very  futile  it  is,  to  admit  the  right  of  State  in- 
terference, and  then  attempt  to  save  it  from 
162 


Reply  to  Hayne 

the  character  of  unlawful  resistance,  by  adding 
terms  of  qualification  to  the  causes  and  occa- 
sions, leaving  all  these  qualifications,  like  the 
case  itself,  in  the  discretion  of  the  State  govern- 
ments. It  must  be  a  clear  case,  it  is  said,  a  de- 
liberate case,  a  palpable  case,  a  dangerous  case. 
But  then  the  State  is  still  left  at  liberty  to  de- 
cide for  herself  what  is  clear,  what  is  deliberate, 
what  is  palpable,  what  is  dangerous.  Do  ad- 
jectives and  epithets  avail  any  thing  ? 

Sir,  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted,  that 
the  merits  of  both  sides  of  a  controversy  appear 
very  clear,  and  very  palpable,  to  those  who  re- 
spectively espouse  them  ;  and  both  sides  usually 
grow  clearer  as  the  controversy  advances. 
South  Carolina  sees  unconstitutionality  in  the 
tariff  ;  she  sees  oppression  there  also,  and  she 
sees  danger.  Pennsylvania,  with  a  vision  not 
less  sharp,  looks  at  the  same  tariff,  and  sees  no 
such  thing  in  it  ;  she  sees  it  all  constitutional, 
all  useful,  all  safe.  The  faith  of  South  Carolina 
is  strengthened  by  opposition,  and  she  now  not 
only  sees,  but  resolves,  that  the  tariff  is  palpa- 
bly unconstitutional,  oppressive,  and  danger- 
ous ;  but  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  behind  her 
neighbors,  and  equally  willing  to  strengthen 
her  own  faith  by  a  confident  asseveration,  re- 
solves, also,  and  gives  to  every  warm  affirma- 
tive of  South  Carolina,  a  plain,  downright, 
Pennsylvania  negative.  South  Carolina,  to 
show  the  strength  and  unity  of  her  opinion, 
brings  her  assembly  to  a  unanimity,  within 
163 


Daniel  Webster 

seven  voices  ;  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  outdone 
in  this  respect  any  more  than  in  others,  re- 
duces her  dissentient  fraction  to  a  single  vote. 
Now,  Sir,  again,  I  ask  the  gentleman,  What  is 
to  be  done  ?  Are  these  States  both  right  ?  Is 
he  bound  to  consider  them  both  right  ?  If  not, 
which  is  in  the  wrong?  or  rather,  which  has 
the  best  right  to  decide  ?  And  if  he,  and  if  I, 
.are  not  to  know  what  the  Constitution  means, 
and  what  it  is,  till  those  two  State  legislatures, 
and  the  twenty-two  others,  shall  agree  in  its 
construction,  what  have  we  sworn  to,  when  we 
have  sworn  to  maintain  it?  I  was  forcibly 
struck,  Sir,  with  one  reflection,  as  the  gentle- 
man went  on  in  his  speech.  He  quoted  Mr. 
Madison's  resolutions,  to  prove  that  a  State 
may  interfere,  in  a  case  of  deliberate,  palpable, 
.and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted. 
The  honorable  member  supposes  the  tariff  law 
to  be  such  an  exercise  of  power  ;  and  that  con- 
sequently a  case  has  arisen  in  which  the  State 
may,  if  it  see  fit,  interfere  by  its  own  law. 
Now  it  so  happens,  nevertheless,  that  Mr.  Madi- 
son deems  this  same  tariff  law  quite  constitu- 
tional. Instead  of  a  clear  and  palpable  viola- 
tion, it  is,  in  his  judgment,  no  violation  at  all. 
So  that,  while  they  use  his  authority  for  a  hypo- 
thetical case,  they  reject  it  in  the  very  case  be- 
fore them.  All  this,  Sir,  shows  the  inherent 
futility,  I  had  almost  used  a  stronger  word,  of 
•conceding  this  power  of  interference  to  the 
State,  and  then  attempting  to  secure  it  from 
164 


Reply  to  Hayne 


abuse  by  imposing  qualifications  of  which  the 
States  themselves  are  to  judge.  One  of  two 
things  is  true  ;  either  the  laws  of  the  Union  are 
beyond  the  discretion  and  beyond  the  control 
.of  the  States  ;  or  else  we  have  no  constitution 
of  general  government,  and  are  thrust  back 
again  to  the  days  of  the  Confederation. 

Let  me  here  say,  Sir,  that  if  the  gentleman's 
•doctrine  had  been  received  and  acted  upon  in 
New  England,  in  the  times  of  the  embargo  and 
non-intercourse,  we  should  probably  not  now 
have  been  here.  The  government  would  very 
likely  have  gone  to  pieces,  and  crumbled  into 
dust.  No  stronger  case  can  ever  arise  than  ex- 
isted under  those  laws  ;  no  States  can  ever  en- 
tertain a  clearer  conviction  than  the  New  Eng- 
land States  then  entertained  ;  and  if  they  had 
been  under  the  influence  of  that  heresy  of  opin- 
ion, as  I  must  call  it,  which  the  honorable  mem- 
"ber  espouses,  this  Union  would,  in  all  proba- 
bility, have  been  scattered  to  the  four  winds. 
I  ask  the  gentleman,  therefore,  to  apply  his 
principles  to  that  case  ;  I  ask  him  to  come  forth 
and  declare,  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  New 
England  States  would  have  been  justified  in 
interfering  to  break  up  the  embargo  system 
under  the  conscientious  opinions  which  they 
held  upon  it  ?  Had  they  a  right  to  annul  that 
law  ?  Does  he  admit  or  deny  ?  If  what  is 
thought  palpably  unconstitutional  in  South 
:  Carolina  justifies  that  State  in  arresting  the 
.  progress  of  the  law,  tell  me  whether  that  which 
165 


Daniel  Webster 

was  thought  palpably  unconstitutional  also  in 
Massachusetts  would  have  justified  her  in  doing 
the  same  thing.  Sir,  I  deny  the  whole  doc- 
trine. It  has  not  a  foot  of  ground  in  the  Con- 
stitution to  stand  on.  No  public  man  of  repu- 
tation ever  advanced  it  in  Massachusetts  in  the 
warmest  times,  or  could  maintain  himself  upon 
it  there  at  any  time. 

I  wish  now,  Sir,  to  make  a  remark  upon  the 
Virginia  resolutions  of  1798.  I  cannot  under- 
take to  say  how  these  resolutions  were  under- 
stood by  those  who  passed  them.  Their  lan- 
guage is  not  a  little  indefinite.  In  the  case  of 
the  exercise  by  Congress  of  a  dangerous  power 
not  granted  to  them,  the  resolutions  assert  the 
right,  on  the  part  of  the  State,  to  interfere  and 
arrest  the  progress  of  the  evil.  This  is  suscepti- 
ble of  more  than  one  interpretation.  It  may 
mean  no  more  than  that  the  States  may  inter- 
fere by  complaint  and  remonstrance,  or  by  pro- 
posing to  the  people  an  alteration  of  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution.  This  would  all  be  quite  un- 
objectionable. Or  it  may  be  that  no  more  is 
meant  than  to  assert  the  general  right  of  revo- 
lution, as  against  all  governments,  in  cases  of 
intolerable  oppression.  This  no  one  doubts, 
and  this,  in  my  opinion,  is  all  that  he  who 
framed  the  resolutions  could  have  meant  by  it ; 
for  I  shall  not  readily  believe  that  he  was  ever 
of  opinion  that  a  State,  under  the  Constitution 
and  in  conformity  with  it,  could,  upon  the 
ground  of  her  own  opinion  of  its  unconstitu- 
166 


Reply  to  Hayne 

tionality,  however  clear  and  palpable  she  might 
think  the  case,  annul  a  law  of  Congress,  so  far 
as  it  should  operate  on  herself,  by  her  own 
legislative  power. 

I  must  now  beg  to  ask,  Sir,  Whence  is  this 
supposed  right  of  the  States  derived  ?  Where 
do  they  find  the  power  to  interfere  with  the 
laws  of  the  Union  ?  Sir,  the  opinion  which  the 
honorable  gentleman  maintains  is  a  notion 
founded  in  a  total  misapprehension,  in  my 
judgment,  of  the  origin  of  this  government, 
and  of  the  foundation  on  which  it  stands.  I 
hold  it  to  be  a  popular  government,  erected  by 
the  people  ;  those  who  administer  it,  responsi- 
ble to  the  people  ;  and  itself  capable  of  being 
amended  and  modified,  just  as  the  people  may 
choose  it  should  be.  It  is  as  popular,  just  as 
truly  emanating  from  the  people,  as  the  State 
governments.  It  is  created  for  one  purpose  ; 
the  State  governments  for  another.  It  has  its 
own  powers  ;  they  have  theirs.  There  is  no 
more  authority  with  them  to  arrest  the  opera- 
tion of  a  law  of  Congress,  than  with  Congress 
to  arrest  the  operation  of  their  laws.  We  are 
here  to  administer  a  Constitution  emanating 
immediately  from  the  people,  and  trusted  by 
them  to  our  administration.  It  is  not  the  crea- 
ture of  the  State  governments.  It  is  of  no  mo- 
ment to  the  argument,  that  certain  acts  of  the 
State  legislatures  are  necessary  to  fill  our  seats 
in  this  body.  That  is  not  one  of  their  original 
167 


Daniel   Webster 

State  powers,  a  part  of  the  sovsreignty  of  the 
State.  It  is  a  duty  which  the  people,  by  the 
Constitution  itself,  have  imposed  on  the  State 
legislatures  ;  and  which  they  might  have  left  to- 
be  performed  elsewhere,  if  they  had  seen  fit. 
So  they  have  left  the  choice  of  President  with 
electors  ;  but  all  this  does  not  affect  the  propo- 
sition that  this  whole  government,  President, 
Senate,  and  House  of  Representatives,  is  a 
popular  government.  It  leaves  it  still  all  its 
popular  character.  The  governor  of  a  State 
(in  some  of  the  States)  is  chosen,  not  directly 
by  the  people,  but  by  those  who  are  chosen  by 
the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  performing, 
among  other  duties,  that  of  electing  a  governor. 
Is  the  government  of  the  State,  on  that  account, 
not  a  popular  government  ?  This  government, 
Sir,  is  the  independent  offspring  of  the  popular 
will.  It  is  not  the  creature  of  State  legisla- 
tures ;  nay,  more,  if  the  whole  truth  must  be 
told,  the  people  brought  it  into  existence,  estab- 
lished it,  and  have  hitherto  supported  it,  for  the 
very  purpose,  amongst  others,  of  imposing  cer- 
tain salutary  restraints  on  State  sovereignties. 
The  States  cannot  now  make  war  ;  they  cannot 
contract  alliances  ;  they  cannot  make,  each  for 
itself,  separate  regulations  of  commerce  ;  they 
cannot  lay  imposts  ;  they  cannot  coin  money. 
If  this  Constitution,  Sir,  be  the  creature  of  State 
legislatures,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  has  ob- 
tained a  strange  control  over  the  volitions  of  its 
creators. 

168 


Reply  to   Hayne 

The  people,  then,  Sir,  erected  this  govern- 
ment. They  gave  it  a  Constitution,  and  in 
that  Constitution  they  have  enumerated  the 
powers  which  they  bestowed  on  it.  They  have 
made  it  a  limited  government.  They  have- 
defined  its  authority.  They  have  restrained  it. 
to  the  exercise  of  such  powers  as  are  granted  ; 
and  all  others,  they  declare,  are  reserved  to  the 
States  or  the  people.  But,  Sir,  they  have  not. 
stopped  here.  If  they  had,  they  would  have 
accomplished  but  half  their  work.  No  defi- 
nition can  be  so  clear,  as  to  avoid  possibility  of 
doubt  ;  no  limitation  so  precise,  as  to  exclude 
all  uncertainty.  Who,  then,  shall  construe  this, 
grant  of  the  people  ?  Who  shall  interpret  their 
will,  where  it  may  be  supposed  they  have  left  it 
doubtful  ?  With  whom  do  they  repose  this 
ultimate  right  of  deciding  on  the  powers  of  the 
government  ?  Sir,  they  have  settled  all  this  in 
the  fullest  manner.  They  have  left  it  with  the 
government  itself,  in  its  appropriate  branches. 
Sir,  the  very  chief  end,  the  main  design,  for 
which  the  whole  Constitution  was  framed  and 
adopted,  was  to  establish  a  government  that 
should  not  be  obliged  to  act  through  State 
agency,  or  depend  on  State  opinion  and  State 
discretion.  The  people  had  had  quite  enough 
of  that  kind  of  government  under  the  Confed- 
eration. Under  that  system,  the  legal  action, 
the  application  of  law  to  individuals,  belonged 
exclusively  to  the  States.  Congress  could  only 
recommend  ;  their  acts  were  not  of  binding 
169 


Daniel   Webster 

force,  till  the  States  had  adopted  and  sanctioned 
them.  Are  we  in  that  condition  still  ?  Are  we 
yet  at  the  mercy  of  State  discretion  and  State 
construction  ?  Sir,  if  we  are,  then  vain  will  be 
our  attempt  to  maintain  the  Constitution  under 
which  we  sit. 

But,  Sir,  the  people  have  wisely  provided,  in 
the  Constitution  itself,  a  proper,  suitable  mode 
and  tribunal  for  settling  questions  of  constitu- 
tional law.  There  are  in  the  Constitution 
grants  of  powers  to  Congress,  and  restrictions 
on  these  powers.  There  are,  also,  prohibitions 
on  the  States.  Some  authority  must,  therefore, 
necessarily  exist,  having  the  ultimate  jurisdic- 
tion to  fix  and  ascertain  the  interpretation  of 
these  grants,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions. 
The  Constitution  has  itself  pointed  out,  ordained 
and  established  that  authority.  How  has  it 
accomplished  this  great  and  essential  end  ?  By 
declaring,  Sir,  that  "  the  Constitution,  and  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  made  in  pursuance 
thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
any  thing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any 
State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.'1 

This,  Sir,  was  the  first  great  step.  By  this 
the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  is  declared.  The  people  so 
will  it.  No  State  law  is  to  be  valid  which  comes 
in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  or  any  law  of 
the  United  States  passed  in  pursuance  of  it. 
But  who  shall  decide  this  question  of  interfer- 
ence ?  To  whom  lies  the  last  appeal  ?  This, 
170 


Reply  to  Hayne 

Sir,  the  Constitution  itself  decides  also,  by  de- 
claring, "  that  the  judicial  power  shall  extend 
to  all  cases  arising  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  "  These  two 
provisions  cover  the  whole  ground.  They  are, 
in  truth,  the  keystone  of  the  arch  !  With  these 
it  is  a  government  ;  without  them  it  is  a  con- 
federation. In  pursuance  of  these  clear  and 
express  provisions,  Congress  established,  at  its 
very  first  session,  in  the  judicial  act,  a  mode  for 
carrying  them  into  full  effect,  and  for  bringing 
all  questions  of  constitutional  power  to  the  final 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  It  then,  Sir, 
became  a  government.  It  then  had  the  means 
of  self-protection  ;  and  but  for  this,  it  would, 
in  all  probability,  have  been  now  among 
things  which  are  past.  Having  constituted  the 
government,  and  declared  its  powers,  the  people 
have  further  said,  that,  since  somebody  must 
decide  on  the  extent  of  these  powers,  the  gov- 
ernment shall  itself  decide  ;  subject,  always, 
like  other  popular  governments,  to  its  respon- 
sibility to  the  people.  And,  now,  Sir,  I  repeat, 
how  is  it  that  a  State  legislature  acquires  any 
power  to  interfere  ?  Who,  or  what,  gives  them 
the  right  to  say  to  the  people,  "  We,  who  are 
your  agents  and  servants  for  one  purpose,  will 
undertake  to  decide,  that  your  other  agents  and 
servants,  appointed  by  you  for  another  purpose, 
have  transcended  the  authority  you  gave  them!" 
The  reply  would  be,  I  think,  not  impertinent, 
<— "  Who  made  you  a  judge  over  another's  ser- 
171 


Daniel   Webster 

vants?  To  their  own  masters  they  stand  or 
fall." 

Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  State  legislatures 
altogether.  It  cannot  stand  the  test  of  exami 
nation.  Gentlemen  may  say,  that,  in  an  extreme 
case,  a  State  government  might  protect  the 
people  from  intolerable  oppression.  Sir,  in 
such  a  case,  the  people  might  protect  them- 
selves, without  the  aid  of  the  State  govern- 
ments. Such  a  case  warrants  revolution.  It 
must  make,  when  it  comes,  a  law  for  itself.  A 
nullifying  act  of  a  State  legislature  cannot  alter 
the  case,  nor  make  resistance  any  more  lawful. 
In  maintaining  these  sentiments,  Sir,  I  am  but 
asserting  the  rights  of  the  people.  I  state  what 
they  have  declared,  and  insist  on  their  right  to 
declare  it.  They  have  chosen  to  repose  this 
power  in  the  general  government,  and  I  think 
it  my  duty  to  support  it,  like  other  constitu- 
tional powers. 

For  myself,  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  the  compe- 
tency of  South  Carolina,  or  any  other  State,  to 
prescribe  my  constitutional  duty  ;  or  to  settle, 
between  me  and  the  people,  the  validity  of  laws 
of  Congress,  for  which  I  have  voted.  I  decline 
her  umpirage.  I  have  not  sworn  to  support  the 
Constitution  according  to  her  construction  of  its 
clauses.  I  have  not  stipulated,  by  my  oath  of 
office  or  otherwise,  to  come  under  any  respon- 
sibility, except  to  the  people,  and  those  whom 
they  have  appointed  to  pass  upon  the  question, 
whether  laws,  supported  by  my  votes,  conform. 
172 


Reply  to  Hayne 

to  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  And,  Sir, 
if  we  look  to  the  general  nature  of  the  case, 
could  any  thing  have  been  more  preposterous,, 
than  to  make  a  government  for  the  whole 
Union,  and  yet  leave  its  powers  subject,  not  to 
one  interpretation,  but  to  thirteen  or  twenty- 
four  interpretations  ?  Instead  of  one  tribunal, 
established  by  all,  responsible  to  all,  with  power 
to  decide  for  all,  shall  constitutional  questions 
be  left  to  four-and-twenty  popular  bodies,  each 
at  liberty  to  decide  for  itself,  and  none  bound 
to  respect  the  decisions  of  others  ;  and  each  at 
liberty,  too,  to  give  a  new  construction  on 
every  new  election  of  its  own  members? 
Would  any  thing,  with  such  a  principle  in  it, 
or  rather  with  such  a  destitution  of  all  principle, 
be  fit  to  be  called  a  government  ?  No,  Sir.  It 
should  not  be  denominated  a  Constitution.  It 
should  be  called,  rather,  a  collection  of  topics  for 
everlasting  controversy  ;  heads  of  debate  for  a 
disputatious  people.  It  would  not  be  a  govern- 
ment. It  would  not  be  adequate  to  any 
practical  good,  or  fit  for  any  country  to  live 
under. 

To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being  misunder- 
stood, allow  me  to  repeat  again,  in  the  fullest 
manner,  that  I  claim  no  powers  for  the  govern- 
ment by  forced  or  unfair  construction.  I  admit 
that  it  is  a  government  of  strictly  limited 
powers  ;  of  enumerated,  specified,  and  par- 
ticularized powers  ;  and  that  whatsoever  is  not 
granted  is  withheld.  But  notwithstanding  all 
173 


Daniel  Webster 

this,  and  however  the  grant  of  powers  may  be 
expressed,  its  limit  and  extent  may  yet,  in 
some  cases,  admit  of  doubt  ;  and  the  general 
government  would  be  good  for  nothing,  it 
would  be  incapable  of  long  existing,  if  some 
mode  had  not  been  provided  in  which  those 
doubts,  as  they  should  arise,  might  be  peaceably, 
but  authoritatively,  solved. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the 
honorable  gentleman's  doctrine  a  little  into  its 
practical  application.  Let  us  look  at  his  proba- 
ble modus  operandi.  If  a  thing  can  be  done, 
an  ingenious  man  can  tell  how  it  is  to  be 
done,  and  I  wish  to  be  informed  how  this  State 
interference  is  to  be  put  in  practice,  without 
violence,  bloodshed,  and  rebellion.  We  will 
take  the  existing  case  of  the  tariff  law.  South 
Carolina  is  said  to  have  made  up  her  opinion 
upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it  (as  we  probably 
shall  not),  she  will  then  apply  to  the  case  the 
remedy  of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we  must 
suppose,  pass  a  law  of  her  legislature,  declar- 
ing the  several  acts  of  Congress,  usually  called 
the  tariff  laws,  null  and  void,  so  far  as  they 
respect  South  Carolina,  or  the  citizens  thereof. 
So  far,  all  is  a  paper  transaction,  and  easy 
-enough.  But  the  collector  at  Charleston  is 
collecting  the  duties  imposed  by  these  tariff 
laws.  He,  therefore,  must  be  stopped.  The 
•collector  will  seize  the  goods  if  the  tariff  duties 
are  not  paid.  The  State  authorities  will  under- 
take their  rescue,  the  marshal,  with  his  posse, 


Reply  to  Hayne 

will  come  to  the  collector's  aid,  and  here  the 
contest  begins.  The  militia  of  the  State  will  be 
called  put  to  sustain  the  nullifying  act.  They 
will  march,  Sir,  under  a  very  gallant  leader  ; 
for  I  believe  the  honorable  member  himself 
commands  the  militia  of  that  part  of  the  State. 
He  will  raise  the  NULLIFYING  ACT  on  his  standard „ 
and  spread  it  out  as  his  banner  !  It  will  have  a 
preamble,  setting  forth,  that  the  tariff  laws  are 
palpable,  deliberate,  and  dangerous  violations 
of  the  Constitution  !  He  will  proceed,  with  this- 
banner  flying,  to  the  custom-house  in  Charles- 
ton, 

"  All  the  while, 
Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds." 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell  the 
Collector  that  he  must  collect  no  more  duties 
under  any  of  the  tariff  laws.  This  he  will  be 
somewhat  puzzled  to  say,  by  the  way,  with  the 
grave  countenance,  considering  what  hand 
South  Carolina  herself  had  in  that  of  1816. 
But,  Sir,  the  collector  would  not,  probably, 
desist,  at  his  bidding.  He  would  show  him  the 
law  of  Congress,  the  treasury  instruction,  and 
his  own  oath  of  office.  He  would  say,  he 
should  perform  his  duty,  come  what  come 
might. 

Here  would  ensue  a  pause  ;  for  they  say  that 
a  certain  stillness  precedes  the  tempest.  The 
trumpeter  would  hold  his  breath  awhile,  and 
before  all  this  military  array  should  fall  on  the 
custom-house,  collector,  clerks,  and  all,  it  is 
175 


Daniel  Webster 

very  probable  some  of  those  composing  it  would 
request  of  their  gallant  Commander-in-chief  to 
be  informed  a  little  upon  the  point  of  law  ;  for 
they  have,  doubtless,  a  just  respect  for  his 
opinions  as  a  lawyer,  as  well  as  for  his  bravery 
as  a  soldier.  They  know  he  has  read  Black- 
stone  and  the  Constitution,  as  well  as  Turenne 
and  Vauban.  They  would  ask  him,  therefore, 
something  concerning  their  rights  in  this  matter. 
They  would  inquire,  whether  it  was  not  some- 
what dangerous  to  resist  a  law  of  the  United 
States.  What  would  be  the  nature  of  their 
offence,  they  would  wish  to  learn,  if  they,  by 
military  force  and  array,  resisted  the  execution 
in  Carolina  of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  and 
it  should  turn  out,  after  all,  that  the  law  was 
constitutional?  He  would  answer,  of  course, 
Treason.  No  lawyer  could  give  any  other 
answer.  John  Fries,  he  would  tell  them,  had 
learned  that,  some  years  ago.  How,  then,  they 
would  ask,  do  you  propose  to  defend  us  ?  We 
are  not  afraid  of  bullets,  but  treason  has  a  way 
of  taking  people  off  that  we  do  not  much 
relish.  How  do  you  propose  to  defend  us  ? 
"  Look  at  my  floating  banner,"  he  would 
reply  ;  "  see  there  the  nullifying  law  !  "  Is 
it  your  opinion,  gallant  commander,  they  would 
then  say,  that,  if  we  should  be  indicted  for 
treason,  that  same  floating  banner  of  yours 
would  make  a  good  plea  in  bar?  "South 
Carolina  is  a  sovereign  State,"  he  would  reply. 
That  is  true  ;  but  would  the  judge  admit  our 
176 


Reply  to   Hayne 

plea?  "These  tariff  laws,"  he  would  repeat, 
"  are  unconstitutional,  palpably,  deliberately, 
dangerously. ' '  That  may  all  be  so  ;  but  if  the 
tribunal  should  not  happen  to  be  of  that  opinion, 
shall  we  swing  for  it  ?  We  are  ready  to  die  for 
our  country,  but  it  is  rather  an  awkward  busi- 
ness, this  dying  without  touching  the  ground  ! 
After  all,  that  is  a  sort  of  hemp  tax  worse  than 
any  part  of  the  tariff. 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  gentleman 
would  be  in  a  dilemma,  like  that  of  another 
great  general.  He  would  have  a  knot  before 
him  which  he  could  not  untie.  He  must  cut  it 
with  his  sword.  He  must  say  to  his  followers, 
"  Defend  yourselves  with  your  bayonets  ;"  and 
this  is  war — civil  war. 

Direct  collision,  therefore,  between  force  and 
force,  is  the  unavoidable  result  of  that  remedy 
for  the  revision  of  unconstitutional  laws  which 
the  gentleman  contends  for.  It  must  happen 
in  the  very  first  case  to  which  it  is  applied.  Is 
not  this  the  plain  result  ?  To  resist  by  force  the 
execution  of  a  law,  generally,  is  treason.  Can 
the  courts  of  the  United  States  take  notice  of 
the  indulgence  of  a  State  to  commit  treason  ? 
The  common  saying,  that  a  State  cannot  com- 
mit treason  herself,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose. 
Can  she  authorize  others  to  do  it?  If  John 
Fries  had  produced  an  act  of  Pennsylvania, 
.annulling  the  law  of  Congress,  would  it  have 
helped  his  case  ?  Talk  about  it  as  we  will, 
these  doctrines  go  the  length  of  revolution. 
177 


Daniel   Webster 

They  are  incompatible  with  any  peaceable 
administration  of  the  government.  They  lead 
directly  to  disunion  and  civil  commotion  ;  and 
therefore  it  is,  that  at  their  commencement, 
when  they  are  first  found  to  be  maintained  by 
respectable  men,  and  in  a  tangible  form,  I 
enter  my  public  protest  against  them  all. 

The  honorable  gentleman  argues,  that  if  this 
government  be  the  sole  judge  of  the  extent  of 
its  own  powers,  whether  that  right  of  judging 
be  in  Congress  or  the  Supreme  Court,  it  equally 
subverts  State  sovereignty.  This  the  gentle- 
man sees,  or  thinks  he  sees,  although  he  can- 
not perceive  how  the  right  of  judging,  in  this 
matter,  if  left  to  the  exercise  of  State  legisla- 
tures, has  any  tendency  to  subvert  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Union.  The  gentleman's  opinion 
may  be,  that  the  right  ought  not  to  have  been 
lodged  with  the  general  government  ;  he  may 
like  better  such  a  constitution  as  we  should  have 
tinder  the  right  of  State  interference  ;  but  I 
ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  plain  matter  of  fact. 
I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  Constitution  itself. 
I  ask  him  if  the  power  is  not  found  there, 
clearly  and  visibly  found  there  ? 

But,  Sir,  what  is  this  danger,  and  what  are 
the  grounds  of  it  ?  Let  it  be  remembered,  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not 
unalterable.  It  is  to  continue  in  its  present  form 
no  longer  than  the  people  who  established  it 
shall  choose  to  continue  it.  If  they  shall 
become  convinced  that  they  have  made  an  in- 
178 


Reply  to   Hayne 


judicious  or  inexpedient  partition  and  distribu- 
tion of  power  between  the  State  governments 
and  the  general  government,  they  can  alter 
that  distribution  at  will. 

If  anything  be  found  in  the  national  Consti- 
tution, either  by  original  provision  or  subse- 
quent interpretation,  which  ought  not  to  be  in 
it,  the  people  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it.  If  any 
construction,  unacceptable  to  them,  be  estab- 
lished, so  as  to  become  practically  a  part  of  the 
Constitution,  they  will  amend  it,  at  their  own 
sovereign  pleasure.  But  while  the  people 
choose  to  maintain  it  as  it  is,  while  they  are 
satisfied  with  it,  and  refuse  to  change  it,  who 
has  given,  or  who  can  give,  to  the  State  legis- 
latures a  right  to  alter  it,  either  by  interference, 
construction,  or  otherwise  ?  Gentlemen  do  not 
seem  to  recollect  that  the  people  have  any 
power  to  do  any  thing  for  themselves.  They 
imagine  there  is  no  safety  for  them,  any  longer 
than  they  are  under  the  close  guardianship  of 
the  State  legislatures.  Sir,  the  people  have  not 
trusted  their  safety,  in  regard  to  the  general 
Constitution,  to  these  hands.  They  have  re- 
quired other  security,  and  taken  other  bonds. 
They  have  chosen  to  trust  themselves,  first,  to 
the  plain  words  of  the  instrument,  and  to  such 
construction  as  the  government  themselves,  in 
doubtful  cases,  should  put  on  their  own  powers, 
under  their  oaths  of  office,  and  subject  to  their 
responsibility  to  them  ;  just  as  the  people  of  a 
State  trust  their  own  State  governments  with  a 
179 


Daniel   Webster 

similar  power.  Secondly,  they  have  reposed 
their  trust  in  the  efficacy  of  frequent  elections, 
and  in  their  own  power  to  remove  their  own 
servants  and  agents  whenever  they  see  cause. 
Thirdly,  they  have  reposed  trust  in  the  judicial 
power,  which,  in  order  that  it  might  be  trust- 
worthy, they  have  made  as  respectable,  as  dis- 
interested, and  as  independent  as  was  prac- 
ticable. Fourthly,  they  have  seen  fit  to  rely, 
in  case  of  necessity,  or  high  expediency,  on 
their  known  and  admitted  power  to  alter  or 
amend  the  Constitution,  peaceably  and  quietly, 
whenever  experience  shall  point  out  defects  or 
imperfections.  And,  finally,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  at  no  time,  in  no  way, 
directly  or  indirectly,  authorized  any  State 
legislature  to  construe  or  interpret  their  high 
instrument  of  government  ;  much  less,  to  inter- 
fere, by  their  own  power,  to  arrest  its  course 
and  operation. 

If,  Sir,  the  people  in  these  respects  had  done 
otherwise  than  they  have  done,  their  constitu- 
tion could  neither  have  been  preserved,  nor 
would  it  have  been  worth  preserving.  And  if 
its  plain  provisions  shall  now  be  disregarded, 
and  these  new  doctrines  interpolated  in  it,  it 
will  become  as  feeble  and  helpless  a  being  as 
its  enemies,  whether  early  or  more  recent, 
could  possibly  desire.  It  will  exist  in  every 
State  but  as  a  poor  dependent  on  State  permis- 
sion. It  must  borrow  leave  to  be  ;  and  will  be, 
no  longer  than  State  pleasure,  or  State  discre- 
180 


Reply  to   Hayne 

tion,  sees  fit  to  grant  the  indulgence,  and  to 
prolong  its  poor  existence. 

But,  Sir,  although  there  are  fears,  there  are 
hopes  also.  The  people  have  preserved  this, 
their  own  chosen  Constitution,  for  forty  years, 
and  have  seen  their  happiness,  prosperity,  and 
renown  grow  with  its  growth,  and  strengthen 
with  its  strength.  They  are  now,  generally, 
strongly  attached  to  it.  Overthrown  by  direct  as- 
sault, it  cannot  be  ;  evaded,  undermined,  NULLI- 
FIED, it  will  not  be,  if  we,  and  those  who  shall  suc- 
ceed us  here,  as  agents  and  representatives  of  the 
people,  shall  conscientiously  and  vigilantly  dis- 
charge the  two  great  branches  of  our  public  trust, 
faithfully  to  preserve,  and  wisely  to  administer  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the  reasons 
of  my  dissent  to  the  doctrines  which  have  been 
advanced  and  maintained.  I  am  conscious  of 
having  detained  you  and  the  Senate  much  too- 
long.  I  was  drawn  into  the  debate  with  no 
previous  deliberation,  such  as  is  suited  to  the 
discussion  of  so  grave  and  important  a  subject. 
But  it  is  a  subject  of  which  my  heart  is  full,  and 
I  have  not  been  willing  to  suppress  the  utter- 
ance of  its  spontaneous  sentiments.  I  cannot, 
even  now,  persuade  myself  to  relinquish  it, 
without  expressing  once  more  my  deep  con- 
viction, that,  since  it  respects  nothing  less  than 
the  Union  of  the  States,  it  is  of  most  vital  and 
essential  importance  to  the  public  happiness.  I 
profess,  Sir,  in  my  career  hitherto,  to  have 
kept  steadily  in  view  the  prosperity  and  honor  of 


Daniel   Webster 

the  whole  country,  and  the  preservation  of  our 
Federal  Union.  It  is  to  that  Union  we  owe  our 
safety  at  home,  and  our  consideration  and  dig- 
nity abroad.  It  is  to  that  Union  that  we  are 
chiefly  indebted  for  whatever  makes  us  most 
proud  of  our  country.  That  Union  we  reached 
only  by  the  discipline  of  our  virtues  in  the 
severe  school  of  adversity.  It  had  its  origin  in 
the  necessities  of  disordered  finance,  prostrate 
commerce,  and  ruined  credit.  Under  its  be- 
nign influences,  these  great  interests  imme- 
diately awoke,  as  from  the  dead,  and  sprang 
forth  with  newness  of  life.  Every  year  of  its 
duration  has  teemed  with  fresh  proofs  of  its 
utility  and  its'  blessings  ;  and  although  our  ter- 
ritory has  stretched  out  wider  and  wider,  and 
our  population  spread  farther  and  farther, 
they  have  not  outrun  its  protection  or  its  bene- 
fits. It  has  been  to  us  all  a  copious  fountain  of 
national,  social,  and  personal  happiness. 

I  have  not  allowed  my  self,  Sir,  to  look  beyond 
the  Union,  to  see  what  might  lie  hidden  in  the 
dark  recess  behind.  I  have  not  coolly  weighed 
the  chances  of  preserving  liberty  when  the 
bonds  that  unite  us  together  shall  be  broken 
asunder.  I  have  not  accustomed  myself  to 
hang  over  the  precipice  of  disunion,  to  see 
whether,  with  my  short  sight,  I  can  fathom  the 
depth  of  the  abyss  below  ;  nor  could  I  regard 
liim  as  a  safe  counsellor  in  the  affairs  of  this 
government,  whose  thoughts  should  be  mainly 
l>ent  on  considering,  not  how  the  Union  may 
182 


Reply  to   Hayne 

be  best  preserved,  but  how  tolerable  might  be 
the  condition  of  the  people  when  it  should  be 
broken  up  and  destroyed.  While  the  Union 
lasts,  we  have  high,  exciting,  gratifying  pros- 
pects spread  out  before  us,  for  us  and  our  chil- 
dren. Beyond  that  I  seek  not  to  penetrate  the 
veil.  God  grant  that  in  my  day,  at  least,  that 
curtain  may  not  rise  !  God  grant  that  on  my 
vision  never  may  be  opened  what  lies  behind  ! 
When  my  eyes  shall  be  turned  to  behold  for  the 
last  time  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I  not  see  him 
shining  on  the  broken  and  dishonored  frag- 
ments of  a  once  glorious  Union  ;  on  States  dis- 
severed, discordant,  belligerent ;  on  a  land 
rent  with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be,  in 
fraternal  blood  !  Let  their  last  feeble  and  lin- 
gering glance  rather  behold  the  gorgeous  ensign 
of  the  republic,  now  known  and  honored 
throughout  the  earth,  still  full  high  advanced, 
its  arms  and  trophies  streaming  in  their  original 
lustre,  not  a  stripe  erased  or  polluted,  nor  a 
single  star  obscured,  bearing  for  its  motto,  no 
such  miserable  interrogatory  as  "  What  is  all 
this  worth  ?  "  nor  those  other  words  of  delusion 
and  folly,  "  Liberty  first  and  Union  after- 
wards ;  "  but  everywhere,  spread  all  over  in 
characters  of  living  light,  blazing  on  all  its 
ample  folds,  as  they  float  over  the  sea  and  over 
the  land,  and  in  every  wind  under  the  whole 
heavens,  that  other  sentiment,  dear  to  every 
true  American  heart, — Liberty  and  Union,  now 
and  for  ever,  one  and  inseparable  f 
183 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


2  02900 


3  197000827  1949 


B  ooooTeT" 


Universi 
South 
Libr; 


